Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/i915: Use engine query interface for gem_ctx_isolation/persistence

Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-12-05T09:54:29Z

On 05/12/2019 09:47, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:22:56AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> On 05/12/2019 09:01, Petri Latvala wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 07:05:12PM +0000, Summers, Stuart wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 16:53 +0200, Petri Latvala wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 09:36:11AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/12/2019 05:11, Stuart Summers wrote:
>>>>>>> Align with gem_exec_basic and other tests using the newer
>>>>>>> engine query interface into i915 to enumerate active engines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stuart Summers <stuart.summers@intel.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> tests/i915/gem_ctx_isolation.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>>> tests/i915/gem_ctx_persistence.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_isolation.c
>>>>>>> b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_isolation.c
>>>>>>> index 6aa27133..9435209e 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_isolation.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_isolation.c
>>>>>>> @@ -856,6 +856,7 @@ static unsigned int
>>>>>>> __has_context_isolation(int fd)
>>>>>>> igt_main
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> + struct intel_execution_engine2 *e;
>>>>>>> unsigned int has_context_isolation = 0;
>>>>>>> int fd = -1;
>>>>>>> @@ -876,8 +877,7 @@ igt_main
>>>>>>> igt_skip_on(gen > LAST_KNOWN_GEN);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> - for (const struct intel_execution_engine2 *e =
>>>>>>> intel_execution_engines2;
>>>>>>> - e->name; e++) {
>>>>>>> + __for_each_physical_engine(fd, e) {
>>>>>>> igt_subtest_group {
>>>>>>> igt_fixture {
>>>>>>> igt_require(has_context_isolati
>>>>>>> on & (1 << e->class));
>>>>>>> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_persistence.c
>>>>>>> b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_persistence.c
>>>>>>> index d68431ae..30772159 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_persistence.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_persistence.c
>>>>>>> @@ -727,7 +727,7 @@ igt_main
>>>>>>> igt_subtest("hangcheck")
>>>>>>> test_nohangcheck_hostile(i915);
>>>>>>> - __for_each_static_engine(e) {
>>>>>>> + __for_each_physical_engine(i915, e) {
>>>>>>> igt_subtest_group {
>>>>>>> igt_fixture {
>>>>>>> gem_require_ring(i915, e-
>>>>>>>> flags);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __for_each_static_engine is correct, at least if you don't want CI
>>>>>> folks go
>>>>>> look for their pitchforks. :) Same for the first hunk, everything
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> enumerates subtests needs to be static.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Option 2, the preferred one - convert the tests to
>>>>>> igt_subtest_with_dynamic
>>>>>> and then you can use __for_each_physical_engine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't __for_each_physical_engine anyway have a hack for being
>>>>> called in that context?
>>>>>
>>>>> Btw, option 2 is
>>>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools/issues/44
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently blocking that effort is getting
>>>>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/70286/ into shape.
>>>>
>>>> Wait I'm a little confused, sorry for the naivete here. Does this mean
>>>> these kinds of changes are blocked on the above series? Or are you
>>>> saying I should go ahead and convert this to the dynamic subtests? Or
>>>> that we can move forward with the current approach and convert at a
>>>> later time?
>>>
>>> Option 2 is blocked by series 70286, sorry for the confusion. I don't
>>> mind slapping your patch in while waiting for that, since it's $RAND
>>> days away still to get there, if it fixes a problem you're having now.
>>
>> I think hack for static enumeration if in --list-subtest mode did not work
>> in practice. Andi, do you remember the details?
>
> __for_each_physical_engine checks for igt_only_list_subtests(),
> if so it behaves like __for_each_static_engine().
>
> Was this what you asked?

Yes. Am I mis-remembering that there was a problem with this mandating
to keep using __for_each_static_engine directly for subtest enumeration?
Maybe I am..

Regards,

Tvrtko