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

Andi Shyti
2019-12-05T09:47:54Z

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?

Andi