From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 20:21:07 -0700 Message-ID: <878rywi95o.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" In-Reply-To: <2981474c-7bbc-c76f-6035-f8643f2be547@intel.com> References: <20211013224317.943625-1-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com> <87ily0ilkd.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <2981474c-7bbc-c76f-6035-f8643f2be547@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/i915: Skip gem_exec_fair on GuC based platforms List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" To: John Harrison Cc: IGT-Dev@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org, Intel-GFX@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org List-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 18:07:05 -0700, John Harrison wrote: > > On 10/13/2021 15:53, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > >> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c > >> index ef5a450f6..ca9c73c6e 100644 > >> --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c > >> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c > >> @@ -1314,6 +1314,12 @@ igt_main > >> igt_require(gem_scheduler_enabled(i915)); > >> igt_require(gem_scheduler_has_ctx_priority(i915)); > >> > >> + /* > >> + * These tests are for a specific scheduling model which is > >> + * not currently implemented by GuC. So skip on GuC platforms. > >> + */ > >> + igt_require(intel_gen(intel_get_drm_devid(i915)) < 12); > > Probably a feature check rather than a version check is better? Can we use > > say gem_has_guc_submission() instead? > > > > Though appears gem_has_guc_submission() only checks if guc submission is > > available, not if it is actually in use (unless guc will used when > > available automatically)? Is it possible to add the check if guc submission > > is actually in use? Or a check for guc scheduler? > > I believe this has come up a few times before. My understanding is that no, > there is no current official/safe way for userland to check if GuC > submission is enabled (you can read some of the debugfs files and make an > educated guess but that isn't exactly an official interface). And the > answer was that it isn't worth adding a UAPI specifically for it. Not least > because it would be a UAPI solely for use by IGT which is not allowed. Hmm, so kernel will use GuC submission if bit 0 of enable_guc module param is 1, correct? Which is what gem_has_guc_submission() checks, though I guess we can also add a function gem_using_guc_submission() which is basically an alias for gem_has_guc_submission(). So we can't do this? Or the module param is not an acceptable uapi? But we already introduced gem_has_guc_submission()? I think this kind of a generation/version check should be implemented in the kernel. If kernel wants to turn on GuC submission by default let it do that and set enable_guc. In IGT we just check enable_guc. No? Thanks.