From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B030210E222 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:11:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <2fe0accf-c58c-4ce7-bf84-9daf23edc6c6@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 11:11:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Kamil Konieczny , igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, Marcin Bernatowicz , matthew.auld@intel.com, francois.dugast@intel.com, zbigniew.kempczynski@intel.com, lukasz.laguna@intel.com, adam.miszczak@intel.com, jakub1.kolakowski@intel.com References: <20231123150823.25862-1-marcin.bernatowicz@intel.com> <20231123150823.25862-3-marcin.bernatowicz@intel.com> <20231123172439.s6mnw54uny7mxphg@kamilkon-desk.igk.intel.com> <6d48e4f7-5bb0-4190-8755-d2cfc6bd3bfd@linux.intel.com> <20231129175648.2b37g62gqloxa3re@kamilkon-desk.igk.intel.com> From: "Bernatowicz, Marcin" In-Reply-To: <20231129175648.2b37g62gqloxa3re@kamilkon-desk.igk.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH v4 i-g-t 2/2] tests/intel/xe_create: create-big-vram subtest List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" List-ID: Hi, On 11/29/2023 6:56 PM, Kamil Konieczny wrote: > Hi Marcin, > > On 2023-11-23 at 19:50:31 +0100, Bernatowicz, Marcin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 11/23/2023 6:24 PM, Kamil Konieczny wrote: >>> Hi Marcin, >>> On 2023-11-23 at 16:08:23 +0100, Marcin Bernatowicz wrote: >>>> Validates the creation of significant Buffer Object (BO) within VRAM, >>>> considering the entire available CPU-visible VRAM size. >>>> The size of the created BO can be adjusted using command line >>>> parameters, with '-S' representing BO size in MB, >>>> and '-p' representing BO size as a percentage of the VRAM size. >>>> >>>> v2: rebased, updated to uAPI changes (DRM_XE_VM_CREATE_FLAG_ASYNC_DEFAULT), >>>> after review corrections: 1024UL -> 1024ULL, >>>> int -> unsigned int (Kamil) >>>> >>>> v3: provided a flag to allocate the memory within the CPU-visible >>>> portion of VRAM (Matt) >>>> __create_bo replaced with xe_bo_create_flags (Lukasz) >>>> removed the percent command line parameter (Lukasz) >>>> renamed size_MB to size_mb (Lukasz) >>>> added helper function to query available CPU-visible VRAM size, >>>> renamed 'xe_vram_available' to 'xe_available_vram_size' for >>>> consistency with other function names >>>> >>>> v4: split lib and test changes into separate patches (Lukasz, Kamil) >>>> added prefixes to titles (Kamil) >>>> restored percent command line parameter (Kamil) >>>> whitespace correction (Kamil) >>>> >>>> Cc: Kamil Konieczny >>>> Cc: Laguna, Lukasz >>>> Cc: Matthew Auld >>>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Bernatowicz >>>> --- >>>> tests/intel/xe_create.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>>> 1 file changed, 83 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_create.c b/tests/intel/xe_create.c >>>> index f4633cfb3..194c677ee 100644 >>>> --- a/tests/intel/xe_create.c >>>> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_create.c >>>> @@ -18,6 +18,14 @@ >>>> #define PAGE_SIZE 0x1000 >>>> +static struct param { >>>> + unsigned int size_mb; >>>> + unsigned int vram_percent; >>>> +} params = { >>>> + .size_mb = 0, >>>> + .vram_percent = 0, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> static int __create_bo(int fd, uint32_t vm, uint64_t size, uint32_t flags, >>>> uint32_t *handlep) >>>> { >>>> @@ -214,7 +222,78 @@ static void create_massive_size(int fd) >>>> } >>>> } >>>> -igt_main >>>> +/** >>>> + * SUBTEST: create-big-vram >>>> + * Functionality: BO creation >>>> + * Test category: functionality test >>>> + * Description: Verifies the creation of substantial BO within VRAM, >>>> + * constituting all available CPU-visible VRAM. >>>> + */ >>>> +static void create_big_vram(int fd) >>>> +{ >>>> + uint64_t bo_size, size, visible_avail_size, alignment; >>>> + uint32_t bo_handle; >>>> + char *bo_ptr = NULL; >>>> + uint64_t vm = 0; >>>> + int gt; >>>> + >>>> + igt_require(xe_has_vram(fd)); >>>> + alignment = xe_get_default_alignment(fd); >>>> + vm = xe_vm_create(fd, DRM_XE_VM_CREATE_FLAG_ASYNC_DEFAULT, 0); >>>> + >>>> + xe_for_each_gt(fd, gt) { >>>> + visible_avail_size = xe_visible_available_vram_size(fd, gt); >>> >>> Skip (continue) if == 0? >> >> Do we expect it to be zero ? >> > > It do not to be here, it can be added below. > >>> >>>> + bo_size = params.size_mb >>>> + ? params.size_mb * 1024ULL * 1024ULL >>>> + : params.vram_percent >>>> + ? ALIGN(visible_avail_size * params.vram_percent / 100, alignment) >>>> + : ALIGN_DOWN(visible_avail_size, alignment); I'll simplify the bo_size to: bo_size = params.size_mb ? params.size_mb * 1024ULL * 1024ULL : ALIGN_DOWN(visible_avail_size * params.vram_percent / 100, alignment); with vram_percent defaulting to 100. >>>> + igt_info("gt%u bo_size=%lu visible_available_vram_size=%lu\n", >>>> + gt, bo_size, visible_avail_size); >>>> + >>> >>> Should it skip if calculated bo_size == 0? >>> In case of skips you can make it dynamic or count number >>> of performed tests (it should be > 0). >> >> Is it expected to be zero ? I would just let it go (and fail). >> >> -- >> marcin >>> >>> Regards, >>> Kamil >>> >>>> + bo_handle = xe_bo_create_flags(fd, vm, bo_size, visible_vram_memory(fd, gt)); >>>> + bo_ptr = xe_bo_map(fd, bo_handle, bo_size); > > Please add assert here: > igt_assert(bo_ptr); xe_bo_map asserts if mmap fails > >>>> + >>>> + size = bo_size - 1; > > Here imho you should add > igt_assert_lt_u64(SZ_64K, size); > > Point is you will not test anything if size is too small. There will be no write, but still we have a check for zero value read at index 0 (the assert after while). I think SZ_64K is the minimum page size for vram, so perhaps we would fail earlier on xe_bo_create (due to visible_vram_memory returning 0?). I'll split the check per gt with dynamic subtests in case any gt's visible available vram returns 0. I'm contemplating using a skip instead of an assert in such cases, as it might be more appropriate. What are your thoughts on this approach? -- marcin > > Regards, > Kamil > >>>> + while (size > SZ_64K) { >>>> + igt_assert_eq(0, READ_ONCE(bo_ptr[size])); >>>> + WRITE_ONCE(bo_ptr[size], 'A'); >>>> + igt_assert_eq('A', READ_ONCE(bo_ptr[size])); >>>> + size >>= 1; >>>> + } >>>> + igt_assert_eq(0, bo_ptr[0]); >>>> + >>>> + munmap(bo_ptr, bo_size); >>>> + gem_close(fd, bo_handle); >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + xe_vm_destroy(fd, vm); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static int opt_handler(int opt, int opt_index, void *data) >>>> +{ >>>> + switch (opt) { >>>> + case 'S': >>>> + params.size_mb = atoi(optarg); >>>> + igt_debug("Size MB: %d\n", params.size_mb); >>>> + break; >>>> + case 'p': >>>> + params.vram_percent = atoi(optarg); >>>> + igt_debug("Percent of VRAM: %d\n", params.vram_percent); >>>> + break; >>>> + default: >>>> + return IGT_OPT_HANDLER_ERROR; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + return IGT_OPT_HANDLER_SUCCESS; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +const char *help_str = >>>> + " -S\tBO size in MB\n" >>>> + " -p\tPercent of VRAM for BO\n" >>>> + ; >>>> + >>>> +igt_main_args("S:p:", NULL, help_str, opt_handler, NULL) >>>> { >>>> int xe; >>>> @@ -253,6 +332,9 @@ igt_main >>>> igt_waitchildren(); >>>> } >>>> + igt_subtest("create-big-vram") { >>>> + create_big_vram(xe); >>>> + } >>>> igt_fixture >>>> drm_close_driver(xe); >>>> -- >>>> 2.31.1 >>>>