[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t 1/3] igt/gem_sync: Exercise sync after context switch

[Antonio Argenziano]

On 16/08/18 00:08, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-08-16 00:59:30)
>>
>>
>> On 15/08/18 10:24, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-08-15 18:20:10)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15/08/18 03:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>>> Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-08-15 00:50:43)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/08/18 04:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> This exercises a special case that may be of interest, waiting for a
>>>>>>> context that may be preempted in order to reduce the wait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> +             cycles = 0;
>>>>>>> +             elapsed = 0;
>>>>>>> +             start = gettime();
>>>>>>> +             do {
>>>>>>> +                     do {
>>>>>>> +                             double this;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +                             gem_execbuf(fd, &contexts[0].execbuf);
>>>>>>> +                             gem_execbuf(fd, &contexts[1].execbuf);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure where the preemption, mentioned in the commit message, is
>>>>>> coming in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Internally. I've suggested that we reorder equivalent contexts in order
>>>>> to satisfy client waits earlier. So having created two independent
>>>>> request queues, userspace should be oblivious to the execution order.
>>>>
>>>> But there isn't an assert because you don't want that to be part of the
>>>> contract between the driver and userspace, is that correct?
>>>
>>> Correct. Userspace hasn't specified an order between the two contexts so
>>> can't actually assert it happens in a particular order. We are free then
>>> to do whatever we like, but that also means no assertion. Just the
>>> figures look pretty and ofc we have to check that nothing actually
>>> breaks.
>>
>> The last question I have is about the batches, why not choosing a spin
>> batch so to make sure that context[0] (and [1]) hasn't completed by the
>> time it starts waiting.
> 
> It would be exercising fewer possibilities. Not that it would be any
> less valid. (If I can't do a pair of trivial execbuf faster than the gpu
> can execute a no-op from idle, shoot me. Each execbuf will take ~500ns,
> the gpu will take 20-50us [bdw-kbl] to execute the first batch from idle.)

It would generate some odd looking numbers anyways.

Reviewed-By: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano at intel.com>

> -Chris
>