Re: [PATCH i-g-t v4] tests/intel/xe_ras: Add test for GPU health indicator

["Tauro, Riana" <riana.tauro@intel.com>]

On 15-09-2026 19:02, Soham Purkait wrote:
> Add a new Xe RAS test exercising the gpu_health sysfs attribute
> exposed by the Xe driver on platforms that provide the system
> controller. The attribute reports and allows updating the GPU
> health state.
>
> The gpu-health subtest validates each valid state by writing it
> and reading the value back, and checks that invalid writes are
> rejected with -EINVAL, guarding against regressions in the
> implementation.
>
> v1:
>   - Add platform-conditional skip and exit handler. (Anirban)
>
> v2:
>   - Add dynamic subtests for each case. (Riana)
>
> Signed-off-by: Soham Purkait <soham.purkait@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Sk Anirban <sk.anirban@intel.com>
> ---
>   tests/intel/xe_ras.c | 146 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   tests/meson.build    |   1 +
>   2 files changed, 147 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 tests/intel/xe_ras.c
>
> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_ras.c b/tests/intel/xe_ras.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000..91233e72f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_ras.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
> +/*
> + * Copyright © 2026 Intel Corporation
> + */
> +
> +#include <errno.h>
> +#include <string.h>
> +#include <unistd.h>
> +
> +#include "igt.h"
> +#include "igt_sysfs.h"
> +
> +/**
> + * TEST: Test Xe RAS (Reliability, Availability, Serviceability) functionality
> + * Category: Core
> + * Mega feature: RAS
> + * Sub-category: RAS tests
> + * Functionality: ras
> + * Test category: Functional tests
> + *
> + * SUBTEST: gpu-health
> + * Description: Verify the gpu_health sysfs attribute accepts each valid
> + *		state (ok/warning/critical) and rejects invalid writes
> + *		with -EINVAL.
Provide a brief description. Don't we need description for each subtest.

++Karthik for Category check

> + */
> +
> +IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Tests for Xe RAS");
> +
> +#define GPU_HEALTH_ATTR	"device/gpu_health"
> +
> +static const char * const gpu_health_states[] = {
> +	"ok",
> +	"warning",
> +	"critical",
> +	"bogus",
invalid?
> +};
> +
> +#define GPU_HEALTH_VALID_STATE_COUNT (ARRAY_SIZE(gpu_health_states) - 1)
> +
> +static struct {
> +	int sys_fd;
> +	char *orig_health;
> +} gpu_health_ctx = { .sys_fd = -1 };
> +
> +static void restore_gpu_health(int sig)
> +{
> +	if (gpu_health_ctx.sys_fd < 0)
> +		return;
> +
> +	if (gpu_health_ctx.orig_health)
> +		igt_sysfs_set(gpu_health_ctx.sys_fd, GPU_HEALTH_ATTR, gpu_health_ctx.orig_health);
> +	close(gpu_health_ctx.sys_fd);
> +	gpu_health_ctx.sys_fd = -1;
> +	if (sig)
> +		return;
Why?
> +	igt_info("Restored initial gpu_health to '%s'\n", gpu_health_ctx.orig_health);
> +	free(gpu_health_ctx.orig_health);
> +	gpu_health_ctx.orig_health = NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static bool valid_gpu_health(const char *s)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	if (!s)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < GPU_HEALTH_VALID_STATE_COUNT; i++)
> +		if (!strcmp(s, gpu_health_states[i]))
> +			return true;
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
> +static void setup_gpu_health(int xe)
> +{
> +	gpu_health_ctx.sys_fd = igt_sysfs_open(xe);
> +	igt_assert(gpu_health_ctx.sys_fd >= 0);
> +
> +	igt_skip_on_f(!igt_sysfs_has_attr(gpu_health_ctx.sys_fd, GPU_HEALTH_ATTR),
> +		      "gpu_health sysfs attribute not exposed by driver\n");
> +
> +	gpu_health_ctx.orig_health = igt_sysfs_get(gpu_health_ctx.sys_fd, GPU_HEALTH_ATTR);
> +	igt_assert_f(valid_gpu_health(gpu_health_ctx.orig_health),
> +		     "Unexpected initial gpu_health value: '%s'\n",
> +		     gpu_health_ctx.orig_health);
> +	igt_info("Initial gpu_health: %s\n", gpu_health_ctx.orig_health);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_gpu_health_state(const char *state)
> +{
> +	char *health;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (!valid_gpu_health(state)) {
> +		ret = igt_sysfs_write(gpu_health_ctx.sys_fd, GPU_HEALTH_ATTR,
> +				      state, strlen(state));
> +		igt_assert_f(ret == -EINVAL,
> +			     "Write of invalid value to %s returned %d, expected -EINVAL\n",
> +			     GPU_HEALTH_ATTR, ret);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	igt_info("Setting gpu_health to '%s'\n", state);
> +
> +	igt_assert_f(igt_sysfs_set(gpu_health_ctx.sys_fd, GPU_HEALTH_ATTR, state),
> +		     "Failed to write '%s' to %s\n",
> +		     state, GPU_HEALTH_ATTR);
> +
> +	health = igt_sysfs_get(gpu_health_ctx.sys_fd, GPU_HEALTH_ATTR);
> +	igt_assert(health);
> +	igt_assert_f(!strcmp(health, state),
> +		     "gpu_health readback mismatch: wrote '%s', read '%s'\n",
> +		     state, health);
> +	igt_info("Verified gpu_health state readback for '%s' successfully\n",
> +		 state);
> +	free(health);
> +}
> +
> +int igt_main()
> +{
> +	int xe;
> +	int state;
> +
> +	igt_fixture() {
> +		xe = drm_open_driver(DRIVER_XE);
> +		igt_install_exit_handler(restore_gpu_health);
This should be inside igt_subtest
> +	}
> +
> +	igt_subtest_with_dynamic("gpu-health") {
> +		setup_gpu_health(xe);
> +
> +		for (state = 0; state < ARRAY_SIZE(gpu_health_states); state++) {
> +			igt_dynamic_f("%s",
> +				      valid_gpu_health(gpu_health_states[state]) ?
> +				      gpu_health_states[state] : "invalid-input") {

Why do we need valid check here?. This is anyway done in test_gpu_health

Thanks
Riana

> +				test_gpu_health_state(gpu_health_states[state]);
> +			}
> +		}
> +
> +		restore_gpu_health(0);
> +	}
> +
> +	igt_fixture()
> +		drm_close_driver(xe);
> +}
> diff --git a/tests/meson.build b/tests/meson.build
> index 1ac89bab7..3c2d4fdda 100644
> --- a/tests/meson.build
> +++ b/tests/meson.build
> @@ -333,6 +333,7 @@ intel_xe_progs = [
>   	'xe_prime_self_import',
>   	'xe_pxp',
>   	'xe_query',
> +	'xe_ras',
>   	'xe_render_copy',
>   	'xe_vm',
>   	'xe_userptr_pressure',