[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t v5 07/13] tests/sw_sync: Add subtest test_sync_merge

[Chris Wilson]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:40:12PM -0400, robert.foss at collabora.com wrote:
> From: Robert Foss <robert.foss at collabora.com>
> 
> Add subtest test_sync_merge that tests merging fences and the validity of the
> resulting merged fence.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss at collabora.com>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric at engestrom.ch>
> ---
>  tests/sw_sync.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 67 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/sw_sync.c b/tests/sw_sync.c
> index 3061279..26226bd 100644
> --- a/tests/sw_sync.c
> +++ b/tests/sw_sync.c
> @@ -116,6 +116,70 @@ static void test_sync_wait(void)
>  	close(timeline);
>  }
>  
> +static void test_sync_merge(void)
> +{
> +	int in_fence[3];
> +	int fence_merge;
> +	int timeline;
> +	int active, signaled;
> +
> +	timeline = sw_sync_timeline_create();
> +	in_fence[0] = sw_sync_fence_create(timeline, 1);
> +	in_fence[1] = sw_sync_fence_create(timeline, 2);
> +	in_fence[2] = sw_sync_fence_create(timeline, 3);
> +
> +	fence_merge = sw_sync_merge(in_fence[0], in_fence[1]);
> +	fence_merge = sw_sync_merge(in_fence[2], fence_merge);

sw_sync_merge() really does need the negative tests:

invalid fd (-1),
device fd (/dev/dri/card0),
file fd.

should cover the most common errors (fuzz testing will hit the rest!)

> +
> +	/* confirm all fences have one active point (even d) */
> +	active = sw_sync_fence_count_status(in_fence[0],
> +					    SW_SYNC_FENCE_STATUS_ACTIVE);
> +	igt_assert_f(active == 1, "in_fence[0] has too many active fences\n");
> +	active = sw_sync_fence_count_status(in_fence[1],
> +					    SW_SYNC_FENCE_STATUS_ACTIVE);
> +	igt_assert_f(active == 1, "in_fence[1] has too many active fences\n");
> +	active = sw_sync_fence_count_status(in_fence[2],
> +					    SW_SYNC_FENCE_STATUS_ACTIVE);
> +	igt_assert_f(active == 1, "in_fence[2] has too many active fences\n");
> +	active = sw_sync_fence_count_status(fence_merge,
> +					    SW_SYNC_FENCE_STATUS_ACTIVE);
> +	igt_assert_f(active == 1, "fence_merge has too many active fences\n");
> +
> +	/* confirm that fence_merge is not signaled until the max of fence 0,1,2 */
> +	sw_sync_timeline_inc(timeline, 1);

> +	signaled = sw_sync_fence_count_status(in_fence[0],
> +					      SW_SYNC_FENCE_STATUS_SIGNALED);

This is missing from the earlier test_sync_busy().

> +	active = sw_sync_fence_count_status(fence_merge,
> +					    SW_SYNC_FENCE_STATUS_ACTIVE);
> +	igt_assert_f(signaled == 1, "in_fence[0] did not signal\n");
> +	igt_assert_f(active == 1, "fence_merge signaled too early\n");
> +
> +	sw_sync_timeline_inc(timeline, 1);
> +	signaled = sw_sync_fence_count_status(in_fence[1],
> +					      SW_SYNC_FENCE_STATUS_SIGNALED);
> +	active = sw_sync_fence_count_status(fence_merge,
> +					    SW_SYNC_FENCE_STATUS_ACTIVE);
> +	igt_assert_f(signaled == 1, "in_fence[1] did not signal\n");
> +	igt_assert_f(active == 1, "fence_merge signaled too early\n");
> +
> +	sw_sync_timeline_inc(timeline, 1);
> +	signaled = sw_sync_fence_count_status(in_fence[2],
> +					      SW_SYNC_FENCE_STATUS_SIGNALED);
> +	igt_assert_f(signaled == 1, "in_fence[2] did not signal\n");
> +	signaled = sw_sync_fence_count_status(fence_merge,
> +					       SW_SYNC_FENCE_STATUS_SIGNALED);
> +	active = sw_sync_fence_count_status(fence_merge,
> +					    SW_SYNC_FENCE_STATUS_ACTIVE);
> +	igt_assert_f(active == 0 && signaled == 1,
> +		     "fence_merge did not signal\n");

Hmm, counting STATUS_SIGNALED / STATUS_ACTIVE is not behaving how I
would intuitively expect.

At this point, timeline.seqno = 3, I would expect count_signaled(merge)
== 3 (and count_fences(merge) == 3 => merge is now signaled).
But that's just my expectations
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre