Re: [PATCH 09/13] tests/intel/xe_oa: Test oa buffer sizes

["Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:44:54 -0800, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
>

Hi Umesh,

> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:34:53AM -0800, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:06:24 -0800, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
> >>
> >> Introduce oa buffer size test separately. Pick a random valid buffer
> >> size for the test.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>  tests/intel/xe_oa.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_oa.c b/tests/intel/xe_oa.c
> >> index 03d223df4..ee87b7338 100644
> >> --- a/tests/intel/xe_oa.c
> >> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_oa.c
> >> @@ -93,6 +93,23 @@ struct accumulator {
> >>	uint64_t deltas[MAX_RAW_OA_COUNTERS];
> >>  };
> >>
> >> +struct oa_buf_size {
> >> +	char name[12];
> >> +	uint32_t size;
> >> +} buf_sizes[] = {
> >> +	{ "128K", SZ_128K },
> >> +	{ "256K", SZ_256K },
> >> +	{ "512K", SZ_512K },
> >> +	{ "1M", SZ_1M },
> >> +	{ "2M", SZ_2M },
> >> +	{ "4M", SZ_4M },
> >> +	{ "8M", SZ_8M },
> >> +	{ "16M", SZ_16M },
> >> +	{ "32M", SZ_32M },
> >> +	{ "64M", SZ_64M },
> >> +	{ "128M", SZ_128M },
> >
> > Would you have the running time for these? Hopefully not too huge for the
> > large buffer sizes, even if we are running just one of them? And what about
> > slower platforms?
> >
> > That was the reason we restricted OA buffer size to just 16 M.
> >
> > This is what I measured here:
> >
> > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/627269/?series=142128&rev=1
> >
> >	$ sudo ./build/tests/xe_oa --r oa-buffer-size
> >	IGT-Version: 1.29-g724fd0b79 (x86_64) (Linux: 6.12.0-rc4+ x86_64)
> >	Using IGT_SRANDOM=1733459091 for randomisation
> >	Opened device: /dev/dri/card0
> >	Starting subtest: oa-buffer-size
> >	Starting dynamic subtest: 8MB
> >	Dynamic subtest 8MB: SUCCESS (0.403s)
> >	Starting dynamic subtest: 32MB
> >	Dynamic subtest 32MB: SUCCESS (1.595s)
> >	Starting dynamic subtest: 128MB
> >	Dynamic subtest 128MB: SUCCESS (6.326s)
> >	Subtest oa-buffer-size: SUCCESS (8.324s)
>
> I can run 128MB and see how long it takes. I guess I didn't hit the larger
> buffers on random runs.  Technically around 30 seconds for 128MB buffer
> with 20us period and a 256 byte report. If report is 576 bytes, then 13
> seconds. As long as it falls within the IGT timeout period, we should be
> good.

To do a quick regression test I frequently just run the OA tests locally
with:

	sudo ./build/tests/xe_oa

So I don't care how long CI takes to run the tests, but for me I want the
each test to finish in ~3 seconds tops.

Though in this case, on LNL:

	$ sudo ./build/tests/xe_oa --r buffer-size
	IGT-Version: 1.30-g71d723c60 (x86_64) (Linux: 6.13.0+ x86_64)
	Using IGT_SRANDOM=1740181681 for randomisation
	Opened device: /dev/dri/card0
	Starting subtest: buffer-size
	Starting dynamic subtest: ccs-0-128M
	Dynamic subtest ccs-0-128M: SUCCESS (2.959s)
	Subtest buffer-size: SUCCESS (2.959s)

This seems to meet the 3 seconds criteria so it's ok.

The big outlier is this one:

	$ sudo ./build/tests/xe_oa --r buffer-fill
	IGT-Version: 1.30-g71d723c60 (x86_64) (Linux: 6.13.0+ x86_64)
	Using IGT_SRANDOM=1740182998 for randomisation
	Opened device: /dev/dri/card0
	Starting subtest: buffer-fill
	Starting dynamic subtest: ccs-0
	Dynamic subtest ccs-0: SUCCESS (24.869s)
	Subtest buffer-fill: SUCCESS (24.869s)

which is definitely not ok and would need a respin.

Anyway I should have other comments on the patches too, so wait for my
review comments before posting a new revision.

Thanks.
--
Ashutosh


>
> >
> >> +};
> >> +
> >>  /* OA unit types */
> >>  enum {
> >>	OAG,
> >> @@ -305,6 +322,7 @@ static struct intel_mmio_data mmio_data;
> >>  static igt_render_copyfunc_t render_copy;
> >>  static uint32_t rc_width, rc_height;
> >>  static uint32_t buffer_fill_size;
> >> +static uint32_t num_buf_sizes;
> >>
> >>  static struct intel_xe_perf_metric_set *metric_set(const struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance *hwe)
> >>  {
> >> @@ -1094,6 +1112,7 @@ init_sys_info(void)
> >>	rc_width = 1920;
> >>	rc_height = 1080;
> >>	buffer_fill_size = SZ_16M;
> >> +	num_buf_sizes = ARRAY_SIZE(buf_sizes);
> >>	oa_exponent_default = max_oa_exponent_for_period_lte(1000000);
> >>
> >>	default_oa_buffer_size = get_default_oa_buffer_size(drm_fd);
> >> @@ -4805,6 +4824,17 @@ igt_main
> >>		__for_one_hwe_in_oag(hwe)
> >>			test_buffer_fill(hwe);
> >>
> >> +	/**
> >> +	 * SUBTEST: buffer-size
> >> +	 * Description: Test various OA buffer sizes
> >> +	 */
> >> +	igt_subtest_with_dynamic("buffer-size") {
> >> +		long k = random() % num_buf_sizes;
> >> +
> >> +		__for_one_hwe_in_oag_w_arg(hwe, buf_sizes[k].name)
> >> +			test_non_zero_reason(hwe, buf_sizes[k].size);
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >>	igt_subtest_with_dynamic("non-zero-reason")
> >>		__for_one_hwe_in_oag(hwe)
> >>			test_non_zero_reason(hwe, 0);
> >> --
> >> 2.34.1
> >>