Re: [PATCH i-g-t 4/4] tests/gem_scheduler: Add subtests to test batch priority behaviour

[Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>]

On 12/02/16 09:38, Derek Morton wrote:
> Add subtests to test each ring to check batch buffers of a higher
> priority will be executed before batch buffers of a lower priority.
>
> Signed-off-by: Derek Morton <derek.j.morton@intel.com>
> ---
>   tests/gem_scheduler.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>   1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/gem_scheduler.c b/tests/gem_scheduler.c
> index 4824c13..febde01 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_scheduler.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_scheduler.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,8 @@
>   
>   IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Check scheduler behaviour. Basic tests ensure independant "
>                        "batch buffers of the same priority are executed in "
> -                     "submission order. Read-read tests ensure "
> +                     "submission order. Priority tests ensure higher priority "
> +                     "batch buffers are executed first. Read-read tests ensure "
>                        "batch buffers with a read dependency to the same buffer "
>                        "object do not block each other. Write-write dependency "
>                        "tests ensure batch buffers with a write dependency to a "
> @@ -61,11 +62,13 @@ struct ring {
>   
>   #define NBR_RINGS (sizeof(rings)/sizeof(struct ring))
>   
> -/* Basic test. Check batch buffers of the same priority and with no dependencies
> - * are executed in the order they are submitted.
> +/* If 'priority' is set false, check batch buffers of the same priority and with
> + * no dependencies are executed in the order they are submitted.
> + * If 'priority' is set true, check batch buffers of higher priority are
> + * executed before batch buffers of lower priority.
>    */
>   #define NBR_BASIC_FDs (3)
> -static void run_test_basic(int in_flight, int ringid)
> +static void run_test_basic(int in_flight, int ringid, bool priority)
>   {
>   	int fd[NBR_BASIC_FDs];
>   	int loop;
> @@ -95,6 +98,15 @@ static void run_test_basic(int in_flight, int ringid)
>   		intel_batchbuffer_free(noop_bb);
>   	}
>   
> +	if(priority) {
> +		struct local_i915_gem_context_param param;
> +		param.context = 0; /* Default context */
> +		param.size = 0;
> +		param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY;
> +		param.value = 1000;
> +		gem_context_set_param(fd[2], &param);

It would be nice to repeat the test lowering the priority of the default 
ctx of fd[1] instead of increasing the priority of the default ctx of 
fd[2]. Maybe we could pass the priority value instead of a bool as 
parameter in the function and have 3 possible behaviors based on the 
value (0, positive, negative)

Regards,
Daniele

> +	}
> +
>   	/* Create buffer objects */
>   	delay_bo = drm_intel_bo_alloc(bufmgr[0], "delay bo", BATCH_SZ, BATCH_SZ);
>   	igt_assert(delay_bo);
> @@ -146,7 +158,12 @@ static void run_test_basic(int in_flight, int ringid)
>   	igt_assert_f(igt_compare_timestamps(delay_buf[2], ts1_buf[0]),
>   	             "Delay ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ") > TS1 ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ")\n",
>   	             delay_buf[2], ts1_buf[0]);
> -	igt_assert_f(igt_compare_timestamps(ts1_buf[0], ts2_buf[0]),
> +	if(priority)
> +		igt_assert_f(igt_compare_timestamps(ts2_buf[0], ts1_buf[0]),
> +		             "TS2 ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ") > TS1 ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ")\n",
> +		             ts2_buf[0], ts1_buf[0]);
> +	else
> +		igt_assert_f(igt_compare_timestamps(ts1_buf[0], ts2_buf[0]),
>   	             "TS1 ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ") > TS2 ts (0x%08" PRIx32 ")\n",
>   	             ts1_buf[0], ts2_buf[0]);
>   
> @@ -393,7 +410,12 @@ igt_main
>   
>   	for (loop=0; loop < NBR_RINGS; loop++)
>   		igt_subtest_f("%s-basic", rings[loop].name) {
> -			run_test_basic(in_flight, rings[loop].id);
> +			run_test_basic(in_flight, rings[loop].id, false);
> +		}
> +
> +	for (loop=0; loop < NBR_RINGS; loop++)
> +		igt_subtest_f("%s-priority", rings[loop].name) {
> +			run_test_basic(in_flight, rings[loop].id, true);
>   		}
>   
>   	for (loop=0; loop < NBR_RINGS; loop++)

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx