From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C81CD6E037 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 19:49:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:49:22 -0700 Message-ID: <87r1xdshml.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" In-Reply-To: <199e0a58-95d0-f88f-efef-12d59bacdd76@intel.com> References: <20200327044250.64274-1-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <87wo76s8or.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <91876d66-5ba8-0351-583e-8baf1ff4a1e1@intel.com> <87v9mpsjqp.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <199e0a58-95d0-f88f-efef-12d59bacdd76@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/perf: add a test for OA data polling reads using "small" buffers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" To: Lionel Landwerlin Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org List-ID: On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:06:13 -0700, Lionel Landwerlin wrote: > > On 27/03/2020 21:03, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:09:41 -0700, Lionel Landwerlin wrote: > >> On 27/03/2020 06:50, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > >>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 21:42:50 -0700, Ashutosh Dixit wrote: > >>>> diff --git a/tests/perf.c b/tests/perf.c > >>>> index 724f6f809..3dc757c3b 100644 > >>>> --- a/tests/perf.c > >>>> +++ b/tests/perf.c > >>>> +static void test_polling_small_buf(void) > >>>> +{ > >>> /snip/ > >>> > >>>> + > >>>> + igt_assert(abs(n_expect_read_bytes - n_bytes_read) < (0.10 * n_expect_read_bytes)); > >>>> +} > >>>> + > >>> I'd be wary of a 90% match on slow platforms like Atom? Maybe 80% is safer? > >> > >> Do we have any experiment showing them behaving differently? > > No I don't have any data, but considering that in previous stable versions > > we can only read < 10% of the data, I think it should be ok to go down to > > 80%? So that we don't start getting unnecessary false alarms in CI, even > > when the issue is fixed. > > Okay, for the record I get somewhere between 93~95% of expected reports on > KBLGT2. Yes I tried it and saw that. I already gave a R-b so we could probably merge the patch after making that change (0.2 instead of 0.1 above), or do you want me to post a new version with the change? Thanks! _______________________________________________ igt-dev mailing list igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev