From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_exec_balance: Check chain of submit dependencies
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:08:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3bf4aa73-c9c0-fca5-664e-4fd41e2874f7@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191127145026.3438876-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
On 27/11/2019 14:50, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Check that the submit fence couples into the dependency chain so that
> the bonded pair cannot over take any of the earlier requests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> ---
> tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c
> index 86028cfdd..ff5bd0134 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c
> @@ -855,6 +855,91 @@ static void bonded_slice(int i915)
> munmap(stop, 4096);
> }
>
> +static void bonded_chain(int i915)
> +{
> + struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 batch = {
> + .handle = batch_create(i915),
> + };
> + uint32_t ctx;
> +
> + /*
> + * Given batches A, B and B', where B and B' are a bonded pair, with
> + * B' depending on B with a submit fence and B depending on A as
> + * an ordinary fence; prove B' cannot complete before A.
> + */
> +
> + ctx = gem_context_create(i915);
> +
> + for (int class = 0; class < 32; class++) {
> + struct i915_engine_class_instance *siblings;
> + struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf = {
> + .buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&batch),
> + .buffer_count = 1,
> + .rsvd1 = ctx,
> + };
> + unsigned int count;
> + igt_spin_t *spin;
> +
> + siblings = list_engines(i915, 1u << class, &count);
> + if (!siblings)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (count < 2) {
> + free(siblings);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + /* A: spin forever on engine 1 */
> + set_load_balancer(i915, ctx, siblings, count, NULL);
> + spin = igt_spin_new(i915,
> + .ctx = ctx,
> + .engine = 1,
> + .flags = (IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN |
> + IGT_SPIN_FENCE_OUT));
> + igt_spin_busywait_until_started(spin);
> +
> + /* B: waits for A on engine 2 */
> + set_load_balancer(i915, ctx, siblings, count, NULL);
> + execbuf.rsvd2 = spin->out_fence;
> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_FENCE_IN | I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT;
> + execbuf.flags |= 2; /* opposite engine to spinner */
Why or?
> + gem_execbuf_wr(i915, &execbuf);
> +
> + /* B': run in parallel with B on engine 1, i.e. not before A! */
> + set_load_balancer(i915, ctx, siblings, count, NULL);
Why are you repeating the same set_load_balancer calls?
> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_FENCE_SUBMIT | I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT;
> + execbuf.flags |= 1; /* same engine as spinner */
Engine 3? But there are only two engines in the map, plus the virtual.
So 0, 1, 2 - how does this work for you?
> + execbuf.rsvd2 >>= 32;
> + gem_execbuf_wr(i915, &execbuf);
> +
> + /* Wait for any magic timeslicing or preemptions... */
> + igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_wait(execbuf.rsvd2 >> 32, 1000),
> + -ETIME);
> +
> + igt_debugfs_dump(i915, "i915_engine_info");
> +
> + /*
> + * ... which should not have happened, so everything is still
> + * waiting on the spinner
> + */
> + igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_status(spin->out_fence), 0);
> + igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_status(execbuf.rsvd2 & 0xffffffff), 0);
> + igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_status(execbuf.rsvd2 >> 32), 0);
> +
> + igt_spin_free(i915, spin);
> + gem_sync(i915, batch.handle);
> +
> + igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_status(execbuf.rsvd2 & 0xffffffff), 1);
> + igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_status(execbuf.rsvd2 >> 32), 1);
> +
> + close(execbuf.rsvd2);
> + close(execbuf.rsvd2 >> 32);
> + }
How evil to lower ctx prio for A only?
> +
> + gem_context_destroy(i915, ctx);
> + gem_close(i915, batch.handle);
> +}
> +
> static void indices(int i915)
> {
> I915_DEFINE_CONTEXT_PARAM_ENGINES(engines, I915_EXEC_RING_MASK + 1);
> @@ -1580,6 +1665,9 @@ igt_main
> igt_subtest("bonded-slice")
> bonded_slice(i915);
>
> + igt_subtest("bonded-chain")
> + bonded_chain(i915);
> +
> igt_fixture {
> igt_stop_hang_detector();
> }
>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-27 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-27 14:50 [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_exec_balance: Check chain of submit dependencies Chris Wilson
2019-11-27 15:08 ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2019-11-27 15:15 ` [igt-dev] [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2019-11-27 15:20 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2019-11-27 15:17 ` [igt-dev] ✗ GitLab.Pipeline: failure for " Patchwork
2019-11-27 15:25 ` [igt-dev] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3bf4aa73-c9c0-fca5-664e-4fd41e2874f7@linux.intel.com \
--to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox