From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: Pallavi Mishra <pallavi.mishra@intel.com>
Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH] tests/intel/xe_exec_thread: Increase ufence timeout
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:59:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZaCO+XbdMRI8OIVb@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240112003450.1691892-1-pallavi.mishra@intel.com>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 06:04:50AM +0530, Pallavi Mishra wrote:
> For invalidate scenario, the ufence occasionally times
> out. Increase timeout for invalidate case.
>
> Fixes: xe_exec_threads@threads-mixed-userptr-invalidate
> and xe_exec_threads@threads-bal-mixed-userptr-invalidate
>
> Signed-off-by: Pallavi Mishra <pallavi.mishra@intel.com>
> ---
> tests/intel/xe_exec_threads.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_exec_threads.c b/tests/intel/xe_exec_threads.c
> index 17ee57a49..04c0e2196 100644
> --- a/tests/intel/xe_exec_threads.c
> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_exec_threads.c
> @@ -327,6 +327,7 @@ test_compute_mode(int fd, uint32_t vm, uint64_t addr, uint64_t userptr,
> bo_size, sync, 1);
> #define THREE_SEC MS_TO_NS(3000)
> #define THIRTY_SEC MS_TO_NS(30000)
> +#define FIVE_SEC MS_TO_NS(5000)
>
> fence_timeout = igt_run_in_simulation() ? THIRTY_SEC : THREE_SEC;
The correct fix would be:
fence_timeout = igt_run_in_simulation() ? THIRTY_SEC : FIVE_SEC;
I also suspect of this change as 3 seconds is already a very long time.
Matt
>
> @@ -389,7 +390,7 @@ test_compute_mode(int fd, uint32_t vm, uint64_t addr, uint64_t userptr,
> xe_wait_ufence(fd, &data[j].exec_sync,
> USER_FENCE_VALUE,
> exec_queues[e],
> - fence_timeout);
> + FIVE_SEC);
> igt_assert_eq(data[i].data, 0xc0ffee);
> } else if (i * 2 != n_execs) {
> /*
> @@ -422,7 +423,7 @@ test_compute_mode(int fd, uint32_t vm, uint64_t addr, uint64_t userptr,
> (flags & RACE ? n_execs / 2 + 1 : n_execs - 1) : 0;
> for (i = j; i < n_execs; i++)
> xe_wait_ufence(fd, &data[i].exec_sync, USER_FENCE_VALUE,
> - exec_queues[i % n_exec_queues], fence_timeout);
> + exec_queues[i % n_exec_queues], FIVE_SEC);
>
> /* Wait for all execs to complete */
> if (flags & INVALIDATE)
> --
> 2.25.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-12 1:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-12 0:34 [igt-dev] [PATCH] tests/intel/xe_exec_thread: Increase ufence timeout Pallavi Mishra
2024-01-12 0:59 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
2024-01-16 18:10 ` Mishra, Pallavi
2024-01-12 1:16 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2024-01-12 1:34 ` ✗ CI.xeBAT: failure " Patchwork
2024-01-12 5:03 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZaCO+XbdMRI8OIVb@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=pallavi.mishra@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox