[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t 2/3] tests/gem_exec_schedule: Add reset on failed preemption test.

[Antonio Argenziano]

On 04/12/17 09:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2017-12-04 17:23:14)
>> This patch adds a test where a low priority batch is going to be
>> declared hung while a preemption is pending. The test wants to verify
>> that a 'bad' low priority batch will not disrupt the execution of a high
>> priority context and that the driver does due diligence in managing a
>> reset while a preemption is pending.
>>
>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> Cc: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   tests/gem_exec_schedule.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c b/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c
>> index 1e6b0ae7..ae44a6c0 100644
>> --- a/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c
>> +++ b/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c
>> @@ -356,7 +356,8 @@ static void promotion(int fd, unsigned ring)
>>          munmap(ptr, 4096);
>>   }
>>   
>> -#define NEW_CTX 0x1
>> +#define NEW_CTX (0x1 << 0)
>> +#define HANG_LP (0x1 << 1)
>>   static void preempt(int fd, unsigned ring, unsigned flags)
>>   {
>>          uint32_t result = gem_create(fd, 4096);
>> @@ -370,6 +371,9 @@ static void preempt(int fd, unsigned ring, unsigned flags)
>>          ctx[HI] = gem_context_create(fd);
>>          gem_context_set_priority(fd, ctx[HI], MAX_PRIO);
>>   
>> +       if (flags & HANG_LP)
>> +               igt_spin_batch_new(fd, ctx[LO], ring, 0, false);
> 
> Both of the hanging batch usecases fit into igt_hang_t batch, which doesn't
> allow preempting atm. (Though I'd be quite happy to see patches towards
> unifying the two interfaces, probably with an opts struct rather than
> continuing to add new params ad nauseam.) Before injecting a hang, you
> must check with igt_allow_hang etc that hangs/resets are allowed by igt,
> and to clean up afterwards.

I'll re-spin using igt_hang and send an RFC to put the two things 
together afterwards. Is that OK with you?

-Antonio

> -Chris
>