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

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

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:34:53 -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)

Also iirc the 32 MB size kept failing because of the reason being zero HW
bug:

https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/632685/?series=142128&rev=2


>
> > +};
> > +
> >  /* 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
> >