[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t v2] tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking: increase FBC wait timeout to 5s

[Paulo Zanoni]

Em Sex, 2017-08-25 às 14:11 +0100, Chris Wilson escreveu:
> Quoting Lofstedt, Marta (2017-08-25 13:50:16)
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lofstedt, Marta
> > > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 2:54 PM
> > > To: 'Chris Wilson' <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>; intel-gfx at lists.fr
> > > eedesktop.org
> > > Subject: RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t v2]
> > > tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking:
> > > increase FBC wait timeout to 5s
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris at chris-wilson.co.uk]
> > > > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 1:47 PM
> > > > To: Lofstedt, Marta <marta.lofstedt at intel.com>; intel-
> > > > gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t v2]
> > > > tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking:
> > > > increase FBC wait timeout to 5s
> > > > 
> > > > Quoting Marta Lofstedt (2017-08-25 11:40:29)
> > > > > From: "Lofstedt, Marta" <marta.lofstedt at intel.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > The subtests: igt at kms_frontbuffer_tracking@fbc-*draw*
> > > > > has non-consistent results, pending between fail and pass.
> > > > > The fails are always due to "FBC disabled".
> > > > > With this increase in timeout the flip-flop behavior is no
> > > > > longer
> > > > > reproducible.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is a partial revert of:
> > > > > 64590c7b768dc8d8dd962f812d5ff5a39e7e8b54,
> > > > > where the timeout was decreased from 5s to 2s.
> > > > > After investigating the timeout needed, the conclusion is
> > > > > that the
> > > > > longer timeout is only needed when the test swaps between
> > > > > some
> > > > > specific draw domains, typically blt vs. mmap_cpu.
> > > > > The objective of the FBC part of the tests is not to
> > > > > benchmark draw
> > > > > domain changes, it is to check that FBC was (re-)enabled.
> > > > > 
> > > > > V2: Added documentation
> > > > > 
> > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101623
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Marta Lofstedt <marta.lofstedt at intel.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c | 2 +-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c
> > > > > b/tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c
> > > > > index e03524f1..2538450c 100644
> > > > > --- a/tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c
> > > > > +++ b/tests/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c
> > > > > @@ -924,7 +924,7 @@ static bool
> > > > > fbc_stride_not_supported(void)
> > > > > 
> > > > >  static bool fbc_wait_until_enabled(void)  {
> > > > 
> > > > Try igt_drop_caches_set(device, DROP_RETIRE); instead of
> > > > relaxing the
> > > > timeout.
> > > > -Chris
> > > 
> > > OK, I will test that and do a V3 if it works!
> > > /Marta
> > 
> > I did some initial testing with igt_drop_caches_set inside
> > fbc_wait_until_enabled and it looks good, I will add this to my
> > weekend tests to get more results. This also appear to improve the
> > runtime of the tests quite a bit. So, maybe the igt_drop_caches_set
> > should be placed somewhere else so it will give runtime
> > improvements not only for the FBC related sub-tests.
> 
> Sure, all the waits can do with the retire first, give it a common
> function and a comment for the rationale (which should pretty much
> the
> same as given in the changelog). 

We can do that, sure, especially if it makes the tests faster...

> Anytime we use the GPU to invalidate
> the frontbuffer tracking, we have to wait for a retire to do the
> flush.
> Retirement is lazy, and is normally driven by GPU activity but we
> have a
> background kworker to make sure we notice when the system becomes
> idle
> independent of userspace - except it's low frequency.

... but our current 2s timeout should have been enough for that,
shouldn't it? If I'm looking at the right part of the code, retirement
should be once per second, so 2s should have been enough. But it looks
like it's not enough

Unless I'm misinterpreting the round_up part, which could convert the
1s to 2s, which would still probably be fine...

Anyway, 3s looks like as definitely safe even in this case. Maybe we
could go with 3s?

We can both increase the timeout *and* do cache dropping. Although I
think not doing the cache dropping is definitely something that needs
to be tested, so doing the cache dropping every time may not be a good
idea.



> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx