Re: [PATCH i-g-t] tests/intel/gem_exec_endless: Use the per-gt interface to set frequencies

[Sebastian Brzezinka <sebastian.brzezinka@intel.com>]

Hi Krzysztof,

On Thu Apr 2, 2026 at 1:04 PM CEST, Krzysztof Niemiec wrote:
> The test alters the environment, specifically the gt frequencies, for
> its duration. Using the legacy interface, however, makes it impossible for
> the pre-test state to be restored due to its limitations in multi-gt
> systems. Use the per-gt interface instead to properly set the values and
> clean up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Niemiec <krzysztof.niemiec@intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/intel/gem_exec_endless.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/intel/gem_exec_endless.c b/tests/intel/gem_exec_endless.c
> index 7f35e985c..9f41d812e 100644
> --- a/tests/intel/gem_exec_endless.c
> +++ b/tests/intel/gem_exec_endless.c
> @@ -316,28 +316,28 @@ static void endless_dispatch(int i915, const struct intel_execution_engine2 *e)
>  		for_each_if(gem_class_can_store_dword(i915, (e)->class)) \
>  			igt_dynamic_f("%s", (e)->name)
>  
> -static void pin_rps(int sysfs)
> +static void pin_rps(int sysfs_gt)
>  {
>  	unsigned int max;
>  
> -	if (igt_sysfs_scanf(sysfs, "gt_RP0_freq_mhz", "%u", &max) != 1)
> +	if (igt_sysfs_scanf(sysfs_gt, "rps_RP0_freq_mhz", "%u", &max) != 1)
>  		return;
>  
> -	igt_sysfs_printf(sysfs, "gt_min_freq_mhz", "%u", max);
> -	igt_sysfs_printf(sysfs, "gt_max_freq_mhz", "%u", max);
> -	igt_sysfs_printf(sysfs, "gt_boost_freq_mhz", "%u", max);
> +	igt_sysfs_printf(sysfs_gt, "rps_min_freq_mhz", "%u", max);
> +	igt_sysfs_printf(sysfs_gt, "rps_max_freq_mhz", "%u", max);
> +	igt_sysfs_printf(sysfs_gt, "rps_boost_freq_mhz", "%u", max);
>  }
>  
> -static void unpin_rps(int sysfs)
> +static void unpin_rps(int sysfs_gt)
>  {
>  	unsigned int v;
>  
> -	if (igt_sysfs_scanf(sysfs, "gt_RPn_freq_mhz", "%u", &v) == 1)
> -		igt_sysfs_printf(sysfs, "gt_min_freq_mhz", "%u", v);
> +	if (igt_sysfs_scanf(sysfs_gt, "rps_RPn_freq_mhz", "%u", &v) == 1)
> +		igt_sysfs_printf(sysfs_gt, "rps_min_freq_mhz", "%u", v);
>  
> -	if (igt_sysfs_scanf(sysfs, "gt_RP0_freq_mhz", "%u", &v) == 1) {
> -		igt_sysfs_printf(sysfs, "gt_max_freq_mhz", "%u", v);
> -		igt_sysfs_printf(sysfs, "gt_boost_freq_mhz", "%u", v);
> +	if (igt_sysfs_scanf(sysfs_gt, "rps_RP0_freq_mhz", "%u", &v) == 1) {
> +		igt_sysfs_printf(sysfs_gt, "rps_max_freq_mhz", "%u", v);
> +		igt_sysfs_printf(sysfs_gt, "rps_boost_freq_mhz", "%u", v);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ int igt_main()
>  
>  	igt_subtest_group() {
>  		struct intel_mmio_data mmio;
> -		int sysfs;
> +		int sysfs_gt, tmp, gt;
>  
>  		igt_fixture() {
>  			igt_require(gem_scheduler_enabled(i915));
> @@ -365,16 +365,22 @@ int igt_main()
>  						   igt_device_get_pci_device(i915),
>  						   false);
>  
> -			sysfs = igt_sysfs_open(i915);
> -			pin_rps(sysfs);
> +			i915_for_each_gt(i915, tmp, gt) {
> +				sysfs_gt = igt_sysfs_gt_open(i915, gt);
Isn’t sysfs_gt already opened as a tmp file? Also, is sysfs_gt closed anywhere?
```
#define for_each_sysfs_gt_dirfd(i915__, dirfd__, gt__) \
	for (gt__ = 0; \
	     (dirfd__ = igt_sysfs_gt_open(i915__, gt__)) != -1; \
	     close(dirfd__), gt__++)

```
 
> +				pin_rps(sysfs_gt);
> +			}
> +
>  		}
>  
>  		test_each_engine("dispatch", i915, e)
>  				endless_dispatch(i915, e);
>  
>  		igt_fixture() {
> -			unpin_rps(sysfs);
> -			close(sysfs);
> +			i915_for_each_gt(i915, tmp, gt) {
> +				sysfs_gt = igt_sysfs_gt_open(i915, gt);
> +				unpin_rps(sysfs_gt);
> +				close(sysfs_gt);
I see this close() but im not sure if it's same fd.

> +			}
>  			intel_register_access_fini(&mmio);
>  		}
>  	}




-- 
Best regards,
Sebastian