[Piglit] RFC enhance dmesg handling in piglit

[Marek Olšák]

Do I have to define my own regexp? What if I don't want to filter
anything, i.e. '.*'?

Marek

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Dylan Baker <baker.dylan.c at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 07:21:50 PM Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 07:53:58AM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
>>> > This series cleans up the dmesg handlingin piglit by implementing a
>>> > module with two classes, one for reading dmesg, and the other that acts
>>> > as a dummy class on non-posix systems, this allows dmesg to just always
>>> > be turned on all the time.
>>> >
>>> > Secondly this new dmesg class has the ability to filter dmesg entries,
>>> > searching for specific regular expressions and classifying them as
>>> > either 'warns' or 'fails'.
>>> >
>>> > Currently the filtering is fairly simply, and I expect to have at least
>>> > one more iteration of these patches with more enries for dmesg. It
>>> > curretly as an example marks any test the segfaults as a 'warn', and
>>> > searches for some entries emmitted by the i915 driver and marks them
>>> > 'fail'.
>>>
>>> Looks like we're colliding a bit here, cool ;-)
>>>
>>> Essentially for i-g-t testcases the rule is that everything in dmesg which
>>> isn't at the debug/info level should make the test fail. Otoh if the tests
>>> succeeds and there's only new info/debug stuff in dmesg, then the result
>>> state shouldn't be set to 'warn'. This is because a lot of our tests are
>>> expected to generate info level messages (e.g. simulated gpu hangs or
>>> module reload). And we often enable full drm debugging when running tests,
>>> which spews a lot.
>>>
>>> So either we need to capture the raw dmesg output to be able to pattern
>>> match log-levels (dmesg -r). Or we do the cheap trick I've done in the
>>> patch submitted yesterday of simply filtering out unwanted levels at the
>>> source.
>>>
>>> But overall I really want dmesg capture support by default for igt tests.
>>> -Daniel
>>
>> So it sounds like the right solution would be to have a set of filters that
>> make sense for piglit's "native" tests, and then allow external tests to
>> overwrite the filters before calling dmesg. Does that sound like a workable
>> solution?
>>
>> I actually assumed that your dmesg filtering would land, and I'd rebase on top
>> of it.
>
> If Marek is ok with the filtering by default then I think we can go
> ahead with that. But if other people are also interested in filtering
> dmesg using the log levels then maybe we should switch to capturing
> them first.
> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch