From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 08:19:48 -0800 Message-ID: <87a61yvfq3.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" To: Janusz Krzysztofik In-Reply-To: <20230131091731.5892-1-janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> References: <20230131091731.5892-1-janusz.krzysztofik@linux.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] [PATCH i-g-t 0/2] tests/i915/perf: Add stress / race exercises List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Chris Wilson Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" List-ID: On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 01:17:29 -0800, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote: > Hi Janusz, > Users reported oopses on list corruptions when using i915 perf with a > number of concurrently running graphics applications. That indicates we > are currently missing some important tests for such scenarios. Cover > that gap. Do these oops etc. have anything to do with perf itself or rather with persistence or non-persistence not properly supported with GuC? We should have seen such failures with persistence tests (with GuC) itself so I am wondering if there's any point of dragging perf into these already muddy waters? Such failures should be isolated first with other tests without mixing perf into this IMO. Thanks. -- Ashutosh