From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>
Cc: Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt@intel.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, oliver.sang@intel.com,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev,
Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson@linux.intel.com>,
Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [drm-intel:drm-intel-gt-next] [drm/i915] [confidence: ] 9bb66c179f: assertion_failure
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 11:59:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o7f1ypyo.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202312071643.321205c6-oliver.sang@intel.com>
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> kernel test robot noticed "assertion_failure" on:
>
> commit: 9bb66c179f50e61df20ba13c9b34ca17d00b05fb ("drm/i915: Reserve some kernel space per vm")
> git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel drm-intel-gt-next
>
> in testcase: igt
So the kernel test robot runs igt. I've seen a handful of reports over
the years, but not a whole lot. If you run it even semi-regularly, I
would have expected more. What's the deal here?
There's clearly overlap with what our CI is doing. Maybe better
coordination would be useful? Especially wrt reporting. I'm not sure if
anyone's going to track these mails.
Cc: Ewelina
> version: igt-x86_64-0f075441-1_20230520
That's six months old and more than 1k commits behind. The results are
going to be useless, I'm afraid.
BR,
Jani.
> with following parameters:
>
> group: group-04
>
>
>
> compiler: gcc-12
> test machine: 20 threads 1 sockets (Commet Lake) with 16G memory
>
> (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace)
>
>
> we also observed below tests failed upon this commit while pass on parent.
>
> 8aa519f17512da50 9bb66c179f50e61df20ba13c9b3
> ---------------- ---------------------------
> fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs
> | | |
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.bb-with-allocator.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.blit-noreloc-keep-cache.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.blit-noreloc-purge-cache.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.blit-reloc-purge-cache.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.delta-check.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.object-noreloc-keep-cache-simple.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.object-noreloc-purge-cache-simple.fail
> :6 83% 5:6 igt.api_intel_bb.object-reloc-purge-cache.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.simple-bb-ctx.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.simple-bb.fail
>
>
>
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202312071643.321205c6-oliver.sang@intel.com
>
>
> [ 43.922756][ T447]
> [ 43.935008][ T447] IGT-Version: 1.27.1-g0f075441 (x86_64) (Linux: 6.6.0-rc7-01579-g9bb66c179f50 x86_64)
> [ 43.935018][ T447]
> [ 43.947248][ T447] Starting subtest: bb-with-allocator
> [ 43.947258][ T447]
> [ 43.956752][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function __intel_bb_add_object, file ../lib/intel_batchbuffer.c:1673:
> [ 43.956762][ T447]
> [ 43.974467][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Failed assertion: allocated || reserved
> [ 43.974477][ T447]
> [ 43.987691][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Can't get offset, allocated: 0, reserved: 0
> [ 43.987706][ T447]
>
>
> The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231207/202312071643.321205c6-oliver.sang@intel.com
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt@intel.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, oliver.sang@intel.com,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev,
Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson@linux.intel.com>,
Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>,
"Musial, Ewelina" <ewelina.musial@intel.com>,
Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [drm-intel:drm-intel-gt-next] [drm/i915] [confidence: ] 9bb66c179f: assertion_failure
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 11:59:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o7f1ypyo.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202312071643.321205c6-oliver.sang@intel.com>
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> kernel test robot noticed "assertion_failure" on:
>
> commit: 9bb66c179f50e61df20ba13c9b34ca17d00b05fb ("drm/i915: Reserve some kernel space per vm")
> git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel drm-intel-gt-next
>
> in testcase: igt
So the kernel test robot runs igt. I've seen a handful of reports over
the years, but not a whole lot. If you run it even semi-regularly, I
would have expected more. What's the deal here?
There's clearly overlap with what our CI is doing. Maybe better
coordination would be useful? Especially wrt reporting. I'm not sure if
anyone's going to track these mails.
Cc: Ewelina
> version: igt-x86_64-0f075441-1_20230520
That's six months old and more than 1k commits behind. The results are
going to be useless, I'm afraid.
BR,
Jani.
> with following parameters:
>
> group: group-04
>
>
>
> compiler: gcc-12
> test machine: 20 threads 1 sockets (Commet Lake) with 16G memory
>
> (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace)
>
>
> we also observed below tests failed upon this commit while pass on parent.
>
> 8aa519f17512da50 9bb66c179f50e61df20ba13c9b3
> ---------------- ---------------------------
> fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs
> | | |
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.bb-with-allocator.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.blit-noreloc-keep-cache.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.blit-noreloc-purge-cache.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.blit-reloc-purge-cache.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.delta-check.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.object-noreloc-keep-cache-simple.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.object-noreloc-purge-cache-simple.fail
> :6 83% 5:6 igt.api_intel_bb.object-reloc-purge-cache.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.simple-bb-ctx.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.simple-bb.fail
>
>
>
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202312071643.321205c6-oliver.sang@intel.com
>
>
> [ 43.922756][ T447]
> [ 43.935008][ T447] IGT-Version: 1.27.1-g0f075441 (x86_64) (Linux: 6.6.0-rc7-01579-g9bb66c179f50 x86_64)
> [ 43.935018][ T447]
> [ 43.947248][ T447] Starting subtest: bb-with-allocator
> [ 43.947258][ T447]
> [ 43.956752][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function __intel_bb_add_object, file ../lib/intel_batchbuffer.c:1673:
> [ 43.956762][ T447]
> [ 43.974467][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Failed assertion: allocated || reserved
> [ 43.974477][ T447]
> [ 43.987691][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Can't get offset, allocated: 0, reserved: 0
> [ 43.987706][ T447]
>
>
> The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231207/202312071643.321205c6-oliver.sang@intel.com
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>
Cc: Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt@intel.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, oliver.sang@intel.com, "Musial,
Ewelina" <ewelina.musial@intel.com>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev,
Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson@linux.intel.com>,
Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [drm-intel:drm-intel-gt-next] [drm/i915] [confidence: ] 9bb66c179f: assertion_failure
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 11:59:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o7f1ypyo.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202312071643.321205c6-oliver.sang@intel.com>
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> kernel test robot noticed "assertion_failure" on:
>
> commit: 9bb66c179f50e61df20ba13c9b34ca17d00b05fb ("drm/i915: Reserve some kernel space per vm")
> git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel drm-intel-gt-next
>
> in testcase: igt
So the kernel test robot runs igt. I've seen a handful of reports over
the years, but not a whole lot. If you run it even semi-regularly, I
would have expected more. What's the deal here?
There's clearly overlap with what our CI is doing. Maybe better
coordination would be useful? Especially wrt reporting. I'm not sure if
anyone's going to track these mails.
Cc: Ewelina
> version: igt-x86_64-0f075441-1_20230520
That's six months old and more than 1k commits behind. The results are
going to be useless, I'm afraid.
BR,
Jani.
> with following parameters:
>
> group: group-04
>
>
>
> compiler: gcc-12
> test machine: 20 threads 1 sockets (Commet Lake) with 16G memory
>
> (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace)
>
>
> we also observed below tests failed upon this commit while pass on parent.
>
> 8aa519f17512da50 9bb66c179f50e61df20ba13c9b3
> ---------------- ---------------------------
> fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs
> | | |
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.bb-with-allocator.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.blit-noreloc-keep-cache.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.blit-noreloc-purge-cache.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.blit-reloc-purge-cache.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.delta-check.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.object-noreloc-keep-cache-simple.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.object-noreloc-purge-cache-simple.fail
> :6 83% 5:6 igt.api_intel_bb.object-reloc-purge-cache.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.simple-bb-ctx.fail
> :6 100% 6:6 igt.api_intel_bb.simple-bb.fail
>
>
>
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202312071643.321205c6-oliver.sang@intel.com
>
>
> [ 43.922756][ T447]
> [ 43.935008][ T447] IGT-Version: 1.27.1-g0f075441 (x86_64) (Linux: 6.6.0-rc7-01579-g9bb66c179f50 x86_64)
> [ 43.935018][ T447]
> [ 43.947248][ T447] Starting subtest: bb-with-allocator
> [ 43.947258][ T447]
> [ 43.956752][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function __intel_bb_add_object, file ../lib/intel_batchbuffer.c:1673:
> [ 43.956762][ T447]
> [ 43.974467][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Failed assertion: allocated || reserved
> [ 43.974477][ T447]
> [ 43.987691][ T447] (api_intel_bb:857) intel_batchbuffer-CRITICAL: Can't get offset, allocated: 0, reserved: 0
> [ 43.987706][ T447]
>
>
> The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231207/202312071643.321205c6-oliver.sang@intel.com
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-08 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-07 8:47 [Intel-gfx] [drm-intel:drm-intel-gt-next] [drm/i915] [confidence: ] 9bb66c179f: assertion_failure kernel test robot
2023-12-07 8:47 ` kernel test robot
2023-12-07 8:47 ` kernel test robot
2023-12-08 9:59 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2023-12-08 9:59 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2023-12-08 9:59 ` Jani Nikula
2023-12-12 8:09 ` Oliver Sang
2023-12-12 8:09 ` Oliver Sang
2023-12-12 8:09 ` Oliver Sang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87o7f1ypyo.fsf@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andrzej.hajda@intel.com \
--cc=chris.p.wilson@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jonathan.cavitt@intel.com \
--cc=juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com \
--cc=nirmoy.das@intel.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.