Re: [PATCH v2 17/19] tests/intel/xe_exec_multi_queue: Sanity test KEEP_ACTIVE flag

[Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 01:10:38PM -0800, Summers, Stuart wrote:
>On Thu, 2025-11-20 at 19:57 -0800, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
>> Add DRM_XE_MULTI_GROUP_KEEP_ACTIVE to valid flags list.
>> Validate that KEEP_ACTIVE is not supported in preempt mode
>> unless fault mode is set.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura
>> <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  tests/intel/xe_exec_multi_queue.c | 31
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_exec_multi_queue.c
>> b/tests/intel/xe_exec_multi_queue.c
>> index 9f7b3b4d7..288ef9ed8 100644
>> --- a/tests/intel/xe_exec_multi_queue.c
>> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_exec_multi_queue.c
>> @@ -37,10 +37,12 @@
>>  #define FAULT_MODE             (0x1 << 6)
>>  #define SMEM                   (0x1 << 7)
>>  #define WAIT_MODE              (0x1 << 8)
>> +#define KEEP_ACTIVE            (0x1 << 9)
>>  
>>  #define MAX_INSTANCE 9
>>  
>> -#define XE_MULTI_GROUP_VALID_FLAGS   (DRM_XE_MULTI_GROUP_CREATE)
>> +#define XE_MULTI_GROUP_VALID_FLAGS   (DRM_XE_MULTI_GROUP_CREATE
>> |        \
>> +                                     DRM_XE_MULTI_GROUP_KEEP_ACTIVE)
>>  
>>  #define BASE_ADDRESS   0x1a0000
>>  
>> @@ -81,7 +83,8 @@ __test_sanity(int fd, int gt, int class, bool
>> preempt_mode)
>>         if (!n)
>>                 return;
>>  
>> -       vm = xe_vm_create(fd, preempt_mode ?
>> DRM_XE_VM_CREATE_FLAG_LR_MODE : 0, 0);
>> +       vm = xe_vm_create(fd, preempt_mode ?
>> DRM_XE_VM_CREATE_FLAG_LR_MODE |
>> +                         DRM_XE_VM_CREATE_FLAG_FAULT_MODE : 0, 0);
>>  
>>         /* Invalid flags */
>>         while (!invalid_flag)
>> @@ -105,6 +108,15 @@ __test_sanity(int fd, int gt, int class, bool
>> preempt_mode)
>>         multi_queue.base.next_extension =
>> to_user_pointer(&multi_queue);
>>         igt_assert_eq(__xe_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, 1, 1, eci, ext,
>> &val), -EINVAL);
>>  
>> +       /* KEEP_ACTIVE not supported in preempt mode without
>> fault_mode */
>> +       if (preempt_mode) {
>> +               vm2 = xe_vm_create(fd, preempt_mode ?
>> DRM_XE_VM_CREATE_FLAG_LR_MODE : 0, 0);
>
>Since we're checking preempt_mode explicitly in the if condition above,
>do we need to keep that here?
>

Yah, good catch, will remove the redundant check.

Niranjana

>Functionally all looks good though.
>
>Thanks,
>Stuart
>
>> +               multi_queue.value |= DRM_XE_MULTI_GROUP_KEEP_ACTIVE;
>> +               igt_assert_eq(__xe_exec_queue_create(fd, vm2, 1, 1,
>> eci, ext, &val), -EINVAL);
>> +               multi_queue.value &= ~DRM_XE_MULTI_GROUP_KEEP_ACTIVE;
>> +               xe_vm_destroy(fd, vm2);
>> +       }
>> +
>>         /* Setting other queue properties are valid for Q0 */
>>         multi_queue.base.next_extension = to_user_pointer(&priority);
>>         exec_queues[0] = xe_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, eci, ext);
>> @@ -205,6 +217,21 @@ __test_sanity(int fd, int gt, int class, bool
>> preempt_mode)
>>         igt_waitchildren();
>>  
>>         xe_vm_destroy(fd, vm);
>> +
>> +       /* Validate closing FD while keeping group active */
>> +       fd = drm_open_driver(DRIVER_XE);
>> +       vm = xe_vm_create(fd, preempt_mode ?
>> DRM_XE_VM_CREATE_FLAG_LR_MODE |
>> +                         DRM_XE_VM_CREATE_FLAG_FAULT_MODE : 0, 0);
>> +
>> +       multi_queue.value = DRM_XE_MULTI_GROUP_CREATE |
>> DRM_XE_MULTI_GROUP_KEEP_ACTIVE;
>> +       multi_queue.base.next_extension = 0;
>> +       exec_queues[0] = xe_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, eci, ext);
>> +
>> +       multi_queue.value = exec_queues[0];
>> +       for (i = 1; i < MAX_N_EXEC_QUEUES; i++)
>> +               exec_queues[i] = xe_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, eci,
>> ext);
>> +
>> +       drm_close_driver(fd);
>>  }
>>  
>>  /**
>