From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: <igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t] tests/intel/xe_exec_store: fix sync usage
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 00:31:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZhXd3lKD77Qv24FY@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42ed0aab-c00a-4a80-91bb-899625277b36@intel.com>
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 07:09:05PM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote:
> On 08/04/2024 18:55, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 06:41:13PM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote:
> > > If using async binds it looks like an in-fence for the exec is needed to
> > > ensure the exec happens after the out-fence from the binds are complete.
> > > Therefore we need to unset DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SIGNAL after doing the
> > > binds, but before the exec, otherwise the sync is rather treated
> > > as an out-fence and the binds can then happen after the exec, leading to
> > > various failures. In addition it looks like async unbind should be
> > > waited on before tearing down the queue/vm which has the bind engine
> > > attached, since the scheduler timeout is immediately set to zero on
> > > destroy, which might then trigger job timeouts. However it looks like
> > > it's also fine to rather just destroy the object and leave KMD to unbind
> > > everything itself. Update the various subtests here to conform to this.
> > >
> > > In the case of the persistent subtest it looks simpler to use sync
> > > vm_bind since we don't have another sync for the in-fence at hand, plus
> > > we don't seem to need a dedicated bind engine.
> > >
> > > Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel/-/issues/1270
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
> >
> > Changes LGTM but IMO we jus delete this test as I'm unsure what coverage
> > this test is providing.
>
> Do you mean just delete the entire xe_exec_store?
>
Yea, not sure how this test ever got added as basically every test in
the suite does a dword store. Probably along the lines of lets port i915
tests to Xe! Not seeing a ton of value in this one... Probably above my
pay grade to make those types od decessions though.
Matt
> >
> > Anyways:
> > Reviewed-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
> >
> > > ---
> > > tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c | 22 ++++++++++++----------
> > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c b/tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c
> > > index c57bcb852..728ce826b 100644
> > > --- a/tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c
> > > +++ b/tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c
> > > @@ -102,13 +102,13 @@ static void persistance_batch(struct data *data, uint64_t addr)
> > > */
> > > static void basic_inst(int fd, int inst_type, struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance *eci)
> > > {
> > > - struct drm_xe_sync sync = {
> > > - .type = DRM_XE_SYNC_TYPE_SYNCOBJ,
> > > - .flags = DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SIGNAL,
> > > + struct drm_xe_sync sync[2] = {
> > > + { .type = DRM_XE_SYNC_TYPE_SYNCOBJ, .flags = DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SIGNAL, },
> > > + { .type = DRM_XE_SYNC_TYPE_SYNCOBJ, .flags = DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SIGNAL, }
> > > };
> > > struct drm_xe_exec exec = {
> > > .num_batch_buffer = 1,
> > > - .num_syncs = 1,
> > > + .num_syncs = 2,
> > > .syncs = to_user_pointer(&sync),
> > > };
> > > struct data *data;
> > > @@ -122,7 +122,8 @@ static void basic_inst(int fd, int inst_type, struct drm_xe_engine_class_instanc
> > > uint32_t bo = 0;
> > > syncobj = syncobj_create(fd, 0);
> > > - sync.handle = syncobj;
> > > + sync[0].handle = syncobj_create(fd, 0);
> > > + sync[1].handle = syncobj;
> > > vm = xe_vm_create(fd, 0, 0);
> > > bo_size = sizeof(*data);
> > > @@ -134,7 +135,7 @@ static void basic_inst(int fd, int inst_type, struct drm_xe_engine_class_instanc
> > > exec_queue = xe_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, eci, 0);
> > > bind_engine = xe_bind_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, 0);
> > > - xe_vm_bind_async(fd, vm, bind_engine, bo, 0, addr, bo_size, &sync, 1);
> > > + xe_vm_bind_async(fd, vm, bind_engine, bo, 0, addr, bo_size, sync, 1);
> > > data = xe_bo_map(fd, bo, bo_size);
> > > if (inst_type == STORE)
> > > @@ -149,12 +150,14 @@ static void basic_inst(int fd, int inst_type, struct drm_xe_engine_class_instanc
> > > exec.exec_queue_id = exec_queue;
> > > exec.address = data->addr;
> > > - sync.flags &= DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SIGNAL;
> > > + sync[0].flags &= ~DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SIGNAL;
> > > + sync[1].flags |= DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SIGNAL;
> > > xe_exec(fd, &exec);
> > > igt_assert(syncobj_wait(fd, &syncobj, 1, INT64_MAX, 0, NULL));
> > > igt_assert_eq(data->data, value);
> > > + syncobj_destroy(fd, sync[0].handle);
> > > syncobj_destroy(fd, syncobj);
> > > munmap(data, bo_size);
> > > gem_close(fd, bo);
> > > @@ -232,7 +235,7 @@ static void store_cachelines(int fd, struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance *eci,
> > > batch_map[b++] = value[n];
> > > }
> > > batch_map[b++] = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
> > > - sync[0].flags &= DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SIGNAL;
> > > + sync[0].flags &= ~DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SIGNAL;
> > > sync[1].flags |= DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SIGNAL;
> > > sync[1].handle = syncobjs;
> > > exec.exec_queue_id = exec_queues;
> > > @@ -250,7 +253,6 @@ static void store_cachelines(int fd, struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance *eci,
> > > for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> > > munmap(bo_map[i], bo_size);
> > > - xe_vm_unbind_async(fd, vm, 0, 0, dst_offset[i], bo_size, sync, 1);
> > > gem_close(fd, bo[i]);
> > > }
> > > @@ -300,7 +302,7 @@ static void persistent(int fd)
> > > vram_if_possible(fd, engine->instance.gt_id),
> > > DRM_XE_GEM_CREATE_FLAG_NEEDS_VISIBLE_VRAM);
> > > - xe_vm_bind_async(fd, vm, 0, sd_batch, 0, addr, batch_size, &sync, 1);
> > > + xe_vm_bind_sync(fd, vm, sd_batch, 0, addr, batch_size);
> > > sd_data = xe_bo_map(fd, sd_batch, batch_size);
> > > prt_data = xe_bo_map(fd, prt_batch, batch_size);
> > > --
> > > 2.44.0
> > >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-10 0:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-08 17:41 [PATCH i-g-t] tests/intel/xe_exec_store: fix sync usage Matthew Auld
2024-04-08 17:55 ` Matthew Brost
2024-04-08 18:09 ` Matthew Auld
2024-04-10 0:31 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
2024-04-09 2:11 ` ✓ CI.xeBAT: success for " Patchwork
2024-04-09 2:31 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " 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=ZhXd3lKD77Qv24FY@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=matthew.auld@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