Re: [PATCH i-g-t 1/1] tests/intel/xe_eu_stall: Do not check for presence of data on simulation

["Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>]

On Tue, 13 May 2025 15:16:14 -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 May 2025 13:57:41 -0700, Harish Chegondi wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 09:43:32AM -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> > > On Mon, 12 May 2025 20:07:38 -0700, Harish Chegondi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some simulation models may not have full EU stall sampling support.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Harish Chegondi <harish.chegondi@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  tests/intel/xe_eu_stall.c | 4 +++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_eu_stall.c b/tests/intel/xe_eu_stall.c
> > > > index 411c30871..bdfa0fc4b 100644
> > > > --- a/tests/intel/xe_eu_stall.c
> > > > +++ b/tests/intel/xe_eu_stall.c
> > > > @@ -586,7 +586,6 @@ enable:
> > > >
> > > >	ret = wait_child(&work_load);
> > > >	igt_assert_f(ret == 0, "waitpid() - ret: %d, errno: %d\n", ret, errno);
> > > > -	igt_assert_f(num_samples, "No EU stalls detected during the workload\n");
> > > >
> > > >	do_ioctl(stream_fd, DRM_XE_OBSERVATION_IOCTL_DISABLE, 0);
> > > >	if (--iter)
> > > > @@ -594,6 +593,9 @@ enable:
> > > >
> > > >	close(stream_fd);
> > > >	free(buf);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!igt_run_in_simulation())
> > > > +		igt_assert_f(num_samples, "No EU stalls detected during the workload\n");
> > >
> > > Do we really want to move this here? Wasn't the earlier location better
> > > since it checked num_samples for every iteration, whereas now we'd check it
> > > only for the last iteration?
> > Hi Ashutosh,
> >
> > Initially I didn't move. When testing I noticed that if there is no
> > data, the assert triggers and the following close() and free() are not
> > called. When the next sub-test gets executed, it returns EBUSY as the
> > stream is not closed in the previous test. So, I moved this check here.
> > Anyhow the data from the first iteration is checked in the blocking-read
> > and non-blocking-read subtests where there is only one iteration.
>
> Hmm, the problem is, it's making the code look weird now. Also, if the
> process dies in an assert, the fd should get closed when the process
> died.

Actually, not sure about this, because it is not a fd created by the
process but an anon fd returned by the open ioctl, so not sure if it gets
closed. I have seen similar EBUSY's happening in OA tests too when things
fail. Anyway, take a quick look and see what's happening, if release() is
getting called or not.

If EBUSY's are ok, we can add the sim check in the previous place.

>
> Or is there a delay between the process dying and fd getting closed? And
> the next process is trying to open the fd before the previous process
> closed the fd? Where did you see the EBUSY issue, is it happening in CI? Or
> what are you executing to reproduce the EBUSY issue?
>
> Can you please add a print in the eu stall release fops and see if
> release() is not getting called when the process dies (put an artificial
> assert in igt if needed).
>
> Better to investigate this a little bit more I think.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  static int opt_handler(int opt, int opt_index, void *data)
> > > > --
> > > > 2.48.1
> > > >