[Piglit] [PATCH v2] Remove ARB_timer_query / EXT_timer_query from quick.py

[Ilia Mirkin]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Mark Janes <mark.a.janes at intel.com> wrote:
> Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 02:48:09PM -0800, Mark Janes wrote:
>>> Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> writes:
>>>
>>> > FWIW, on nv50 and nvc0, EXT_timer_query time-elapsed and
>>> > ARB_timer_query query GL_TIMESTAMP reliably fail, and the rest
>>> > reliably pass. I don't remember ever seeing inconsistent behaviour.
>>> > FWIW I don't really know what these extensions do, or what the tests
>>> > check for, but just thought I'd provide the data point.
>>>
>>> We probably see the failure more often because we run test with gbm, so
>>> the CPU is consistently pegged on all cores.  Comparing cpu times with
>>> gpu times is likely to be error-prone in this situation.
>>>
>>> Since it only affects our automated system, we'll exclude it when we
>>> invoke piglit.
>>>
>>> -Mark
>>
>> I think we should change the "Couldn't find appropriate number of iterations" to
>> a skip. That seems to be the common failure on GBM (for me). All other failures
>> are likely to be real^winteresting failures.
>
> The failure I've seen on the older machines is "GPU time didn't match
> CPU time".  I've already disabled this test in our environment, so it's
> a non-issue.

FWIW "GPU time didn't match CPU time" is the reason for the nv50/nvc0
failures as well:

http://people.freedesktop.org/~imirkin/nv50-comparison/nv92-2014-03-09-mupuf/spec/ARB_timer_query/query%20GL_TIMESTAMP.html
http://people.freedesktop.org/~imirkin/nv50-comparison/nv92-2014-03-09-mupuf/spec/EXT_timer_query/time-elapsed.html
http://people.freedesktop.org/~imirkin/nvc0-comparison/nve7-2014-06-06-mupuf-gs5/spec/ARB_timer_query/query%20GL_TIMESTAMP.html
http://people.freedesktop.org/~imirkin/nvc0-comparison/nve7-2014-06-06-mupuf-gs5/spec/EXT_timer_query/time-elapsed.html

The gpu time is like 5e-6 while cpu time is like 0.1.

  -ilia