Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/perf_pmu: Idle before measuring idle

From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/perf_pmu: Idle before measuring idle
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 09:15:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <048b4fe9-02bd-0e00-5a3a-f82854dadeb1@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190331210930.24358-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

On 31/03/2019 22:09, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Before trying to measure the busyness reporting for the idle state, make
> sure the gpu is actually idle and not still running any backgound system
> task.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> ---
>   tests/perf_pmu.c | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/perf_pmu.c b/tests/perf_pmu.c
> index 1a08f564b..ef61c4d40 100644
> --- a/tests/perf_pmu.c
> +++ b/tests/perf_pmu.c
> @@ -264,6 +264,7 @@ single(int gem_fd, const struct intel_execution_engine2 *e, unsigned int flags)
>   	uint64_t val;
>   	int fd;
>   
> +	gem_quiescent_gpu(gem_fd);
>   	fd = open_pmu(I915_PMU_ENGINE_BUSY(e->class, e->instance));
>   
>   	if (flags & TEST_BUSY)
> 

It's okay but where did it fail? Because subtest has quiescent at the 
end, and IGT has it at start.

Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev