[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/i915_query: tweak the unallocated tracking test

[Das, Nirmoy]

On 7/5/2022 12:15 PM, Matthew Auld wrote:
> Make sure we always print the seed. Also make sure we use the correct
> helpers for the igt_assert when comparing values of type uint64.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
> Cc: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>   tests/i915/i915_query.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>   1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/i915/i915_query.c b/tests/i915/i915_query.c
> index 840b4864..4abd3edc 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/i915_query.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/i915_query.c
> @@ -784,9 +784,11 @@ static void fill_unallocated(int fd, struct drm_i915_query_item *item, int idx,
>   	struct igt_list_head handles;
>   	uint32_t num_handles;
>   	uint64_t rem, total;
> +	unsigned int seed;
>   	int id;
>   
> -	srand(time(NULL));
> +	seed = time(NULL);
> +	srand(seed);
>   
>   	IGT_INIT_LIST_HEAD(&handles);
>   
> @@ -829,28 +831,28 @@ static void fill_unallocated(int fd, struct drm_i915_query_item *item, int idx,
>   
>   	upload(fd, &handles, num_handles);
>   
> +	igt_debug("fill completed with seed=%u, cpu_access=%d, idx=%d, total=%"PRIu64"KiB, num_handles=%u\n",
> +		  seed, cpu_access, idx, total >> 10, num_handles);
> +
>   	old_info = new_info;
>   	memset(regions, 0, item->length);
>   	i915_query_items(fd, item, 1);
>   	new_info = regions->regions[idx];
>   
> -	igt_assert_lte(new_info.unallocated_size,
> -		       new_info.probed_size - total);
> -	igt_assert_lt(new_info.unallocated_size, old_info.unallocated_size);
> +	igt_assert_lte_u64(new_info.unallocated_size,
> +			   new_info.probed_size - total);
> +	igt_assert_lt_u64(new_info.unallocated_size, old_info.unallocated_size);
>   	if (new_info.probed_cpu_visible_size ==
>   	    new_info.probed_size) { /* full BAR */
> -		igt_assert_eq(new_info.unallocated_cpu_visible_size,
> -			      new_info.unallocated_size);
> +		igt_assert_eq_u64(new_info.unallocated_cpu_visible_size,
> +				  new_info.unallocated_size);
>   	} else if (cpu_access) {
> -		igt_assert_lt(new_info.unallocated_cpu_visible_size,
> -			      old_info.unallocated_cpu_visible_size);
> -		igt_assert_lte(new_info.unallocated_cpu_visible_size,
> -			       new_info.probed_cpu_visible_size - total);
> +		igt_assert_lt_u64(new_info.unallocated_cpu_visible_size,
> +				  old_info.unallocated_cpu_visible_size);
> +		igt_assert_lte_u64(new_info.unallocated_cpu_visible_size,
> +				   new_info.probed_cpu_visible_size - total);
>   	}
>   
> -	igt_debug("fill completed with idx=%d, total=%"PRIu64"KiB, num_handles=%u\n",
> -		  idx, total >> 10, num_handles);
> -
>   	igt_list_for_each_entry_safe(iter, tmp, &handles, link) {
>   		gem_close(fd, iter->handle);
>   		free(iter);
> @@ -863,11 +865,11 @@ static void fill_unallocated(int fd, struct drm_i915_query_item *item, int idx,
>   	i915_query_items(fd, item, 1);
>   	new_info = regions->regions[idx];
>   
> -	igt_assert(new_info.unallocated_size >=
> -		   old_info.unallocated_size + total);
> +	igt_assert_lt_u64(old_info.unallocated_size + total,
> +			  new_info.unallocated_size);

Hi Matt,


Shouldn't this be igt_assert_lte_u64()?

>   	if (cpu_access)
> -		igt_assert(new_info.unallocated_cpu_visible_size >=
> -			   old_info.unallocated_cpu_visible_size + total);
> +		igt_assert_lt_u64(old_info.unallocated_cpu_visible_size + total,
> +				  new_info.unallocated_cpu_visible_size);

same live above.


Nirmoy

>   }
>   
>   static void test_query_regions_unallocated(int fd)