Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_exec_big: Add a single shot test

[Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:43:41PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> CI complains that the exhaustive test of trying every size up to the
> limit is too slow, so add a simple test that tries to submit one
> extreme batch buffer and check all the relocations land.
> 
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105555
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---
>  tests/i915/gem_exec_big.c    | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_big.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_big.c
> index a15672f66..6d7041cf4 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_big.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_big.c
> @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static void exec1(int fd, uint32_t handle, uint64_t reloc_ofs, unsigned flags, c
>  	gem_exec[0].relocs_ptr = to_user_pointer(gem_reloc);
>  	gem_exec[0].alignment = 0;
>  	gem_exec[0].offset = 0;
> -	gem_exec[0].flags = 0;
> +	gem_exec[0].flags = EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS;
>  	gem_exec[0].rsvd1 = 0;
>  	gem_exec[0].rsvd2 = 0;
>  
> @@ -154,12 +154,11 @@ static void execN(int fd, uint32_t handle, uint64_t batch_size, unsigned flags,
>  	gem_exec[0].handle = handle;
>  	gem_exec[0].relocation_count = nreloc;
>  	gem_exec[0].relocs_ptr = to_user_pointer(gem_reloc);
> +	gem_exec[0].flags = EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS;
>  
>  	memset(&execbuf, 0, sizeof(execbuf));
>  	execbuf.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(gem_exec);
>  	execbuf.buffer_count = 1;
> -	execbuf.batch_start_offset = 0;
> -	execbuf.batch_len = 8;
>  	execbuf.flags = flags;
>  
>  	/* Avoid hitting slowpaths in the reloc processing which might yield a
> @@ -197,16 +196,10 @@ static void execN(int fd, uint32_t handle, uint64_t batch_size, unsigned flags,
>  #undef reloc_ofs
>  }
>  
> -igt_simple_main
> +static void exhaustive(int fd)
>  {
>  	uint32_t batch[2] = {MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END};
>  	uint64_t batch_size, max, ggtt_max, reloc_ofs;
> -	int fd;
> -
> -	fd = drm_open_driver(DRIVER_INTEL);
> -	igt_require_gem(fd);
> -
> -	use_64bit_relocs = intel_gen(intel_get_drm_devid(fd)) >= 8;
>  
>  	max = 3 * gem_aperture_size(fd) / 4;
>  	ggtt_max = 3 * gem_global_aperture_size(fd) / 4;
> @@ -258,6 +251,61 @@ igt_simple_main
>  		else
>  			batch_size *= 2;
>  	}
> +}
> +
> +static void single(int i915)
> +{
> +	const uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
> +	uint64_t batch_size, limit;
> +	uint32_t handle;
> +	void *ptr;
> +
> +	batch_size = (intel_get_avail_ram_mb() - 4) << 20; /* internal slack */
> +	limit = gem_aperture_size(i915) - (256 << 10); /* low pages reserved */
> +	if (!gem_uses_full_ppgtt(i915))
> +		limit = 3 * limit / 4;
> +
> +	batch_size = min(batch_size, limit);
> +	batch_size = ALIGN(batch_size, 4096);
> +	igt_info("Submitting a %'"PRId64"MiB batch, %saperture size %'"PRId64"MiB\n",
> +		 batch_size >> 20,
> +		 gem_uses_full_ppgtt(i915) ? "" : "shared ",
> +		 gem_aperture_size(i915) >> 20);
> +	intel_require_memory(1, batch_size, CHECK_RAM);
> +
> +	handle = gem_create(i915, batch_size);
> +	gem_write(i915, handle, 0, &bbe, sizeof(bbe));
> +
> +	if (!FORCE_PREAD_PWRITE && gem_has_llc(i915))
> +		ptr = __gem_mmap__cpu(i915, handle, 0, batch_size, PROT_READ);
> +	else if (!FORCE_PREAD_PWRITE && gem_mmap__has_wc(i915))
> +		ptr = __gem_mmap__wc(i915, handle, 0, batch_size, PROT_READ);
> +	else
> +		ptr = NULL;
> +
> +	execN(i915, handle, batch_size, 0, ptr);
> +
> +	if (ptr)
> +		munmap(ptr, batch_size);
> +}
> +
> +igt_main
> +{
> +	int i915 = -1;
> +
> +	igt_fixture {
> +		i915 = drm_open_driver(DRIVER_INTEL);
> +		igt_require_gem(i915);
> +
> +		use_64bit_relocs = intel_gen(intel_get_drm_devid(i915)) >= 8;
> +	}
> +
> +	igt_subtest("single")
> +		single(i915);
> +
> +	igt_subtest("exhaustive")
> +		exhaustive(i915);

Do we still need this one? CI time isn't an endless resource (as much as
we'd want to), neither is our ability to maintain everything. And if all
we get is timeouts in CI I think there's better uses for that machine
time. And we do use all the CI machine time, so anytime you take away 10
minutes, it's 10 minutes of not running some other testcase.
-Daniel

>  
> -	close(fd);
> +	igt_fixture
> +		close(i915);
>  }
> diff --git a/tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt b/tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt
> index cef0da84a..0e6beeae4 100644
> --- a/tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt
> +++ b/tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ igt@gem_ctx_thrash(@.*)?
>  igt@gem_evict_alignment(@.*)?
>  igt@gem_evict_everything(@.*)?
>  igt@gem_exec_alignment@(?!.*single).*
> +igt@gem_exec_big@(?!.*single).*
>  igt@gem_exec_capture@many-(?!4K-).*
>  igt@gem_exec_fence@(?!.*basic).*
>  igt@gem_exec_flush@(?!.*basic).*
> -- 
> 2.20.1
> 
> _______________________________________________
> igt-dev mailing list
> igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev