Re: [PATCH v2 i-g-t] tests/intel-ci/xe-sriov-vf.blocklist.txt: Blocklist for SR-IOV VF BAT runs

["Bernatowicz, Marcin" <marcin.bernatowicz@linux.intel.com>]

On 7/26/2024 8:33 PM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> 
> 
> On 26.07.2024 19:09, Marcin Bernatowicz wrote:
>> Blocklist tests not applicable for Virtual Function (VF) BAT runs.
>> The list extends xe.blocklist.txt to enable xe-fast-feedback.testlist
>> execution on VF device.
>>
>> V2:
>> - Reduce blocklist to minimal, favoring SKIPs.
>> - Demonstrated minimal time impact on ADLP with increased skips.
>>
> 
> likely you wanted to include below details after the --- mark
> 
Ok, will put it after --- mark
>> Before:
>>
>> summary:
>>         name: vf_bats_results
>>         ----  ---------------
>>         pass:             171
>>         fail:               0
>>        crash:               0
>>         skip:              56
>>      timeout:               0
>>         warn:               0
>>   incomplete:               0
>>   dmesg-warn:               0
>>   dmesg-fail:               0
>>      changes:               0
>>        fixes:               0
>> regressions:               0
>>        total:             227
>>         time:        00:00:25
>>
>> After:
>>
>> summary:
>>         name: vf_bats_results
>>         ----  ---------------
>>         pass:             171
>>         fail:               0
>>        crash:               0
>>         skip:             119
>>      timeout:               0
>>         warn:               0
>>   incomplete:               0
>>   dmesg-warn:               0
>>   dmesg-fail:               0
>>      changes:               0
>>        fixes:               0
>> regressions:               0
>>        total:             290
>>         time:        00:00:27
>>
>> Cc: Adam Miszczak <adam.miszczak@linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Lukasz Laguna <lukasz.laguna@intel.com>
>> Cc: Jakub Kolakowski <jakub1.kolakowski@intel.com>
>> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <Michal.Wajdeczko@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Bernatowicz <marcin.bernatowicz@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>   tests/intel-ci/meson.build               |  1 +
>>   tests/intel-ci/xe-sriov-vf.blocklist.txt | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 tests/intel-ci/xe-sriov-vf.blocklist.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/intel-ci/meson.build b/tests/intel-ci/meson.build
>> index f16243cbb..59323eda9 100644
>> --- a/tests/intel-ci/meson.build
>> +++ b/tests/intel-ci/meson.build
>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ intelci_files = [
>>     'xe.blocklist.txt',
>>     'xe-fast-feedback.testlist',
>>     'xe-fast-feedback-chamelium-only.testlist',
>> +  'xe-sriov-vf.blocklist.txt',
>>   ]
>>   
>>   install_data(sources : intelci_files, install_dir : datadir)
>> diff --git a/tests/intel-ci/xe-sriov-vf.blocklist.txt b/tests/intel-ci/xe-sriov-vf.blocklist.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000..870082f5b
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tests/intel-ci/xe-sriov-vf.blocklist.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
>> +##################################################################
>> +# Block list for VF xe-fast-feedback runs
> 
> IIUC, the 'xe.blocklist.txt' is applied to both BAT and FULL runs
> 
> so if this file will also be applied on FULL runs, then comment above is
> misleading, and if only BAT will be impacted, then filename does not
> reflect that

I'll update the comment, the list should be applicable to BAT/FULL runs

> 
>> +##################################################################
>> +# Prevent potential module reloads during tests
> 
> nit: decorations used in this file are so aggressive that it is hard to
> see what's the comment and where's next section

Taken style from existing lists. Is following be better?:

##################################################################
# Block list for VF runs
##################################################################
#
# Prevent potential module reloads during tests
#
igt@xe_module_load
#
# Not applicable on VF (requires PF)
#
igt@sriov_basic
> 
>> +##################################################################
>> +igt@xe_module_load
>> +##################################################################
>> +# Not applicable on VF (requires PF)
>> +##################################################################
>> +igt@sriov_basic
> 
> per comment above we favor SKIPs, so maybe we don't need to block this?

Yes, I will remove it
> 
>> +##################################################################
>> +# Modify tests to SKIP: No interface on VF.
>> +##################################################################
>> +igt@xe_gt_freq
>> +igt@xe_pm_residency
>> +##################################################################
>> +# Blocked because of abort
>> +##################################################################
>> +igt@xe_debugfs@gt
> 
> 1. do we really run debugfs tests in BAT ?

+Zbigniew +Kasia

> 2. IIRC there was one case where VF will complain while reading the
> debugfs, but maybe by time we enable the VF runs we could fix that
> rather then add everything to the block list ?

The enablement of VF BAT runs is pending due to this blocklist not merged.
Can we update it when fixes are ready ?
>