[Piglit] [PATCH][RFC] Add dmesg option for reboot policy

[Ilia Mirkin]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Dylan Baker <baker.dylan.c at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 02:48:35PM +0200, Martin Peres wrote:
>> On 02/11/15 16:57, yann.argotti at linux.intel.com wrote:
>> >This adds a policy which advises when user should reboot system to avoid
>> >noisy test results due to system becoming unstable, for instance, and
>> >therefore continues testing successfully.
>> >To do this, a new Dmesg class is proposed which is not filtering dmesg and
>> >monitors whether or not one of the following event occurs:
>> >- gpu reset failed (not just gpu reset happened, that happens way too
>> >often and many tests even provoke hangs intentionally)
>> >- gpu crash,
>> >- Oops:
>> >- BUG
>> >- lockdep splat that causes the locking validator to get disabled
>> >If one of these issues happen, piglit test execution is stopped
>> >-terminating test thread pool- and exit with code 3 to inform that reboot
>> >is advised.
>> >Then test execution resume, after rebooting system or not, is done like
>> >usually with command line parameter "resume".
>> >
>> >To call it, use command line parameter: --dmesg monitored
>>
>> Hello Yann,
>>
>> The rationale behind this patch is very sound and we need something like
>> this. Here are however a list of nitpicks:
>>
>>  - Please send patches with git send-email, otherwise, it makes it
>> impossible for us to comment inline which is the usual process for patch
>> review. Please re-send :)
>>
>> - varaiable -> variable; double space after "when a reboot may be required"
>>
>>  - I am not a big fan of changing the semantic of arguments that have been
>> there forever. Can you think of a case where the user would not want the
>> test to abort if we reach a state where we cannot trust the result? I am
>> including Dylan on this. Also, if we are to keep these modes, can we rename
>> the "simple" mode to "warning" and "monitored" to "abort"? This would make
>> more sense and clearly state the goal of the modes.
>
> Ilia, Daniel, Thomas, Glenn, I know that y'all use the dmesg support.
> What do you think?

Can you provide a summary of what this patch does? It was submitted as
an attachment, so I can't (easily) look at it... either way, as long
as running with --dmesg doesn't break, I probably don't care. I use
--dmesg to know which tests cause the GPU to complain, which I then,
in turn, use to pick which tests to debug further. (And since I
normally run with -1 anyways, it's ~free to add...)

  -ilia