[Intel-gfx] [01/15] drm/i915: Copy user requested buffers into the error state

[Ben Widawsky]

On 17-03-21 16:23:05, Tahvanainen, Jari wrote:
>See below [Jari]...
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Widawsky [mailto:ben at bwidawsk.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 5:38 PM
>To: Tahvanainen, Jari <jari.tahvanainen at intel.com>
>Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>; intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>Subject: Re: [01/15] drm/i915: Copy user requested buffers into the error state
>
>On 17-03-21 11:30:36, Tahvanainen, Jari wrote:
>>Note that this is for all the patches in series, replied only on [1/15].
>>
>>See also https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94001#c45
>>
>
>Jari, did you test this patch specifically? It would involve introspection of the error state.
>
>[Jari]  like said I tested the patch series including this patch
>	" Note that this is for all the patches in series, replied only on [1/15]"
>              Tested-by " for https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/21377"
>           	
>	If this is not the way to do it then I need to stop.
>           	And since being tester (not programmer) you need to tell more what do you mean with " would involve introspection of the error state".
>	What should be outcome? What skill shall have for it, etc.? If I cannot do it then assumable tested-by is not the thing that I will do in future.

Well there is tested-by "this doesn't regress anything" and there is tested-by
"this new feature works properly". I've no doubt you asserted the first, but my
concern was around the second. For this patch specifically, it's a new feature
and there is no igt test for it AFAIK.

>>
>>From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris at chris-wilson.co.uk]
>>Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 3:20 PM
>>To: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>>Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net>
>>Subject: [01/15] drm/i915: Copy user requested buffers into the error
>>state
>>
>>Introduce a new execobject.flag (EXEC_OBJECT_CAPTURE) that userspace
>>may use to indicate that it wants the contents of this buffer preserved
>>in the error state (/sys/class/drm/cardN/error) following a GPU hang
>>involving this batch.
>>
>>Use this at your discretion, the contents of the error state. although
>>compressed, are allocated with GFP_ATOMIC (i.e. limited) and kept for
>>all eternity (until the error state is destroyed).
>>
>>Based on an earlier patch by Ben Widawsky
>><ben at bwidawsk.net<mailto:ben at bwidawsk.net>>
>>Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson
>><chris at chris-wilson.co.uk<mailto:chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>>
>>Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net<mailto:ben at bwidawsk.net>>
>>Cc: Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com<mailto:mattst88 at gmail.com>>
>>Acked-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net<mailto:ben at bwidawsk.net>>
>>Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen
>><joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com<mailto:joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com
>>>>
>>
>>
>>Tested-by: Jari Tahvanainen <jari.tahvanainen at intel.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>for https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/21377 on my dev-SKL (i5-6600k) by taking all the gem_exec_reloc cases to testlist (151 tests).
>>
>>Executing those as a full set through piglit was not successful due to out-of-memory conditions at the end of the testlist with some (varying) gtt-xx subcases causing "Command terminated by signal 9". cpu-xx did not signal any problems.
>>
>>
>>
>>drm-tip: 2017y-03m-17d-08h-03m-19s without patch series produced:
>>
>>[151/151] skip: 2, pass: 120, fail: 29
>>
>>
>>
>>with patch series applied one gets:
>>
>>[121/151] pass: 121 |
>>
>>running: igt/gem_exec_reloc/gtt-28 - "Command terminated by signal 9"
>>
>>Taking rest as new testlist
>>
>>[30/30] skip: 2, pass: 30, dmesg-warn: 1
>>
>>having
>>
>>dmesg-warn: igt/gem_exec_reloc/readonly-32
>>
>>skip: igt/gem_exec_reloc/active-bsd1
>>
>>skip: igt/gem_exec_reloc/active-bsd2
>>
>>
>>
>>When running tests gtt-xx tests individually then result for all is pass.
>>
>>$ sudo ./gem_exec_reloc --run-subtest cpu-31
>>
>>IGT-Version: 1.17-g3e3c1cd (x86_64) (Linux: 4.11.0-rc2-ezbench_cb106cd+
>>x86_64)
>>
>>Subtest cpu-31: SUCCESS (3,760s)
>>
>>$ sudo ./gem_exec_reloc --run-subtest gtt-31
>>
>>IGT-Version: 1.17-g3e3c1cd (x86_64) (Linux: 4.11.0-rc2-ezbench_cb106cd+
>>x86_64)
>>
>>Subtest gtt-31: SUCCESS (25,313s)
>>
>>$ sudo ./gem_exec_reloc --run-subtest gtt-30
>>
>>IGT-Version: 1.17-g3e3c1cd (x86_64) (Linux: 4.11.0-rc2-ezbench_cb106cd+
>>x86_64)
>>
>>Subtest gtt-30: SUCCESS (11,196s)
>>
>>$ sudo ./gem_exec_reloc --run-subtest gtt-29
>>
>>IGT-Version: 1.17-g3e3c1cd (x86_64) (Linux: 4.11.0-rc2-ezbench_cb106cd+
>>x86_64)
>>
>>Subtest gtt-29: SUCCESS (5,198s)
>>
>>$ sudo ./gem_exec_reloc --run-subtest gtt-28
>>
>>IGT-Version: 1.17-g3e3c1cd (x86_64) (Linux: 4.11.0-rc2-ezbench_cb106cd+
>>x86_64)
>>
>>Subtest gtt-28: SUCCESS (2,543s)
>>