[Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 13/24] i915/gem_ctx_param: Test set/get (copy) VM
Tvrtko Ursulin
tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com
Tue Mar 26 10:33:04 UTC 2019
On 26/03/2019 10:22, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 22/03/2019 09:21, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> Exercise reusing the GTT of one ctx in another.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> ---
>> tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c
>> index b3f8637df..54ade8b4b 100644
>> --- a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c
>> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_param.c
>> @@ -36,17 +36,6 @@ IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Basic test for context
>> set/get param input validation.");
>> #define NEW_CTX BIT(0)
>> #define USER BIT(1)
>> -static int reopen_driver(int fd)
>> -{
>> - char path[256];
>> -
>> - snprintf(path, sizeof(path), "/proc/self/fd/%d", fd);
>> - fd = open(path, O_RDWR);
>> - igt_assert_lte(0, fd);
>> -
>> - return fd;
>> -}
>> -
>> static void set_priority(int i915)
>> {
>> static const int64_t test_values[] = {
>> @@ -91,7 +80,7 @@ static void set_priority(int i915)
>> igt_permute_array(values, size, igt_exchange_int64);
>> igt_fork(flags, NEW_CTX | USER) {
>> - int fd = reopen_driver(i915);
>> + int fd = gem_reopen_driver(i915);
>> struct drm_i915_gem_context_param arg = {
>> .param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY,
>> .ctx_id = flags & NEW_CTX ? gem_context_create(fd) : 0,
>> @@ -143,6 +132,73 @@ static void set_priority(int i915)
>> free(values);
>> }
>> +static uint32_t __batch_create(int i915, uint32_t offset)
>> +{
>> + const uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
>> + uint32_t handle;
>> +
>> + handle = gem_create(i915, ALIGN(offset + 4, 4096));
>> + gem_write(i915, handle, offset, &bbe, sizeof(bbe));
>> +
>> + return handle;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static uint32_t batch_create(int i915)
>> +{
>> + return __batch_create(i915, 0);
>> +}
>
> Looks familiar. :)
>
>> +
>> +static void test_vm(int i915)
>> +{
>> + struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 batch = {
>> + .handle = batch_create(i915),
>> + };
>> + struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 eb = {
>> + .buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&batch),
>> + .buffer_count = 1,
>> + };
>> + struct drm_i915_gem_context_param arg = {
>> + .param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_VM,
>> + };
>> + uint32_t parent, child;
>> +
>> + arg.value = -1ull;
>> + igt_require(__gem_context_set_param(i915, &arg) == -ENOENT);
>> +
>> + parent = gem_context_create(i915);
>> + child = gem_context_create(i915);
>> +
>> + eb.rsvd1 = parent;
>> + batch.offset = 48 << 20;
>> + gem_execbuf(i915, &eb);
>> + igt_assert_eq_u64(batch.offset, 48 << 20);
>> +
>> + eb.rsvd1 = child;
>> + batch.offset = 0;
>> + gem_execbuf(i915, &eb);
>> + igt_assert_eq_u64(batch.offset, 0);
>> +
>> + eb.rsvd1 = parent;
>> + gem_execbuf(i915, &eb);
>> + igt_assert_eq_u64(batch.offset, 48 << 20);
>
> Please drop a comment at the start of these execbuf operations to
> explain what and why. We don't need softpin to guarantee they will get
> pinned to where we want them to?
>
>> +
>> + arg.ctx_id = parent;
>> + gem_context_get_param(i915, &arg);
>> +
>> + arg.ctx_id = child;
>> + gem_context_set_param(i915, &arg);
>
> Another get param to assert child vm id is the same as the parent?
>
> Also, try self-assign? I mean set the same vm id as already have?
And a test to check vm id space is per fd - that same id can be obtained
in two fds, if not too fragile/white-box wrt idr allocator.
And also that different id from one fd cannot be passed to set_vm in
another. This one should be robust.
Regards,
Tvrtko
>> +
>> + eb.rsvd1 = child;
>> + gem_execbuf(i915, &eb);
>> + igt_assert_eq_u64(batch.offset, 48 << 20);
>
> Interesting, for me at least. Please put a comment here.
>
>> +
>> + gem_context_destroy(i915, child);
>> + gem_context_destroy(i915, parent);
>> +
>> + gem_sync(i915, batch.handle);
>> + gem_close(i915, batch.handle);
>> +}
>> +
>> igt_main
>> {
>> struct drm_i915_gem_context_param arg;
>> @@ -253,6 +309,9 @@ igt_main
>> gem_context_set_param(fd, &arg);
>> }
>> + igt_subtest("vm")
>> + test_vm(fd);
>> +
>> arg.param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY;
>> igt_subtest("set-priority-not-supported") {
>>
>
> Add to basic test list? Or call basic-vm? Honestly don't remember how we
> do it these days..
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
>
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list