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

[Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com>]

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

I can run 128MB and see how long it takes. I guess I didn't hit the 
larger buffers on random runs.  Technically around 30 seconds for 128MB 
buffer with 20us period and a 256 byte report. If report is 576 bytes, 
then 13 seconds. As long as it falls within the IGT timeout period, we 
should be good.

Thanks,
Umesh


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