Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH v16 5/8] tests: gem_exec_basic: add engine discovery test

Andi Shyti
2019-03-31T17:52:35Z

> > + igt_subtest("exec-engines-ctx") {
> > + uint64_t ctx_id;
> > + struct intel_execution_engine2 *e2;
> > +
> > + ctx_id = gem_context_create(fd);
> > +
> > + for_each_context_engine(fd, ctx_id, e2)
> > + igt_assert(gem_context_has_engine(fd, ctx_id,
> > + e2->flags));
> > +
> > + gem_context_destroy(fd, ctx_id);
> > + }
>
> Starting subtest: exec-engines-ctx
> (gem_exec_basic:17617) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function __real_main117, file ../tests/i915/gem_exec_basic.c:146:
> (gem_exec_basic:17617) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: gem_context_has_engine(fd, ctx_id, e2->flags)
> Stack trace:
> #0 ../lib/igt_core.c:1474 __igt_fail_assert()
> #1 ../tests/i915/gem_exec_basic.c:144 __real_main117()
> #2 ../tests/i915/gem_exec_basic.c:117 main()
> #3 ../csu/libc-start.c:342 __libc_start_main()
> #4 [_start+0x2a]
> Subtest exec-engines-ctx failed.
> **** DEBUG ****
> (gem_exec_basic:17617) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function __real_main117, file ../tests/i915/gem_exec_basic.c:146:
> (gem_exec_basic:17617) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: gem_context_has_engine(fd, ctx_id, e2->flags)
> (gem_exec_basic:17617) igt_core-INFO: Stack trace:
> (gem_exec_basic:17617) igt_core-INFO: #0 ../lib/igt_core.c:1474 __igt_fail_assert()
> (gem_exec_basic:17617) igt_core-INFO: #1 ../tests/i915/gem_exec_basic.c:144 __real_main117()
> (gem_exec_basic:17617) igt_core-INFO: #2 ../tests/i915/gem_exec_basic.c:117 main()
> (gem_exec_basic:17617) igt_core-INFO: #3 ../csu/libc-start.c:342 __libc_start_main()
> (gem_exec_basic:17617) igt_core-INFO: #4 [_start+0x2a]
> **** END ****
>
> I'd say that is worth a little polishing on what the error might have
> been.

mmmhhh... how did you get it? I tested it on drm-tip kernel
(different versions), mainline kernel (different versions) and
Tvrtko's kernel and didn't get any failure.

All the patches were applied on latest igt until this one (to
make sure I didn't forget any dependency with future patches).

I executed it in loop several times and I have other tests on
top, I might have forgotten something.

Thanks for testing it,
Andi