Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/kms_cursor_legacy: Wait for an extra vblank

[Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com>]

On 15.4.2020 13.26, Kahola, Mika wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:58 AM
>> To: Kahola, Mika <mika.kahola@intel.com>; igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
>> Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/kms_cursor_legacy: Wait for an extra
>> vblank
>>
>> On 2.4.2020 14.07, Mika Kahola wrote:
>>> kms_cursor_legacy IGT subtest 2x-nonblocking-modeset-vs-cursor-atomic
>>> is failing due to busyness while trying to do atomic commit. In case,
>>> we are busy, let's just wait one extra vblank before continuing the
>>> test.
>>>
>>> References: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/1062
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mika Kahola <mika.kahola@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>    tests/kms_cursor_legacy.c | 2 +-
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tests/kms_cursor_legacy.c b/tests/kms_cursor_legacy.c
>>> index d5f95b8d..13aadcce 100644
>>> --- a/tests/kms_cursor_legacy.c
>>> +++ b/tests/kms_cursor_legacy.c
>>> @@ -894,7 +894,6 @@ static void
>>> two_screens_flip_vs_cursor(igt_display_t *display, int nloops, bool
>>>
>>>    	arg2[1].x = arg2[1].y = 192;
>>>
>>> -
>>
>> random empty line deletion
> Oh, that was unintentional. Good catch!
> 
>>
>>>    	igt_display_commit2(display, display->is_atomic ? COMMIT_ATOMIC :
>>> COMMIT_LEGACY);
>>>
>>>    	igt_fork(child, 2) {
>>> @@ -927,6 +926,7 @@ static void
>>> two_screens_flip_vs_cursor(igt_display_t *display, int nloops, bool
>>>
>>>    		if (ret == -EBUSY) {
>>>    			/* Force completion on both pipes, and generate event.
>> */
>>> +			igt_wait_for_vblank(display->drm_fd, pipe);
>>
>> I was wondering where that ebusy is coming from, it is because of above
>> disabling pipe2? Anyway, would it be better to wait for ebusy to go away if
>> cannot commit during that time? I'm thinking this will fail if whatever causing
>> that ebusy will go past vblank..for example really slow monitor.
> 
> I chose to use an extra vblank as it turned out to be good enough to pass the test on my test platform.
> 
> Another alternative would be to wait out for ebusy to go away, like you proposed. I think in this approach we would need to add a timeout to ensure that we don't wait indefinitely.

On the same test for exactly same reason in flip_nonblocking(..) 
function there's 5s wait. It was earlier timeouting with one second wait 
on some boxes. At 5s according to Ville modeset will timeout from kernel 
side.

> 
>>
>>
>>>    			igt_display_commit_atomic(display, flags, NULL);
>>>
>>>    			while (nloops--) {
>>>
> 

_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev