Re: [PATCH i-g-t 05/16] i915/gem_ctx_create: Basic checks for constructor properties

Chris Wilson
2019-05-15T19:05:42Z

Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-05-14 11:15:12)
>
> On 08/05/2019 11:09, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Check that the extended create interface accepts setparam.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > ---
> > tests/i915/gem_ctx_create.c | 225 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 213 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_create.c b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_create.c
> > index a664070db..9b4fddbe7 100644
> > --- a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_create.c
> > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_create.c
> > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> > #include <time.h>
> >
> > #include "igt_rand.h"
> > +#include "sw_sync.h"
> >
> > #define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_BSD_SHIFT (13)
> > #define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_BSD_MASK (3 << LOCAL_I915_EXEC_BSD_SHIFT)
> > @@ -45,12 +46,33 @@ static unsigned all_nengine;
> > static unsigned ppgtt_engines[16];
> > static unsigned ppgtt_nengine;
> >
> > -static int __gem_context_create_local(int fd, struct drm_i915_gem_context_create *arg)
> > +static int create_ioctl(int fd, struct drm_i915_gem_context_create *arg)
> > {
> > - int ret = 0;
> > - if (drmIoctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_CREATE, arg))
> > - ret = -errno;
> > - return ret;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + err = 0;
> > + if (igt_ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_CREATE, arg)) {
> > + err = -errno;
> > + igt_assert(err);
> > + }
> > +
> > + errno = 0;
> > + return err;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int create_ext_ioctl(int i915,
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_context_create_ext *arg)
> > +{
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + err = 0;
> > + if (igt_ioctl(i915, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_CREATE_EXT, arg)) {
> > + err = -errno;
> > + igt_assume(err);
> > + }
> > +
> > + errno = 0;
> > + return err;
> > }
> >
> > static double elapsed(const struct timespec *start,
> > @@ -308,6 +330,187 @@ static void maximum(int fd, int ncpus, unsigned mode)
> > free(contexts);
> > }
> >
> > +static void basic_ext_param(int i915)
> > +{
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_context_create_ext_setparam ext = {
> > + { .name = I915_CONTEXT_CREATE_EXT_SETPARAM },
> > + };
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_context_create_ext create = {
> > + .flags = I915_CONTEXT_CREATE_FLAGS_USE_EXTENSIONS
> > + };
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_context_param get;
> > +
> > + igt_require(create_ext_ioctl(i915, &create) == 0);
> > + gem_context_destroy(i915, create.ctx_id);
> > +
> > + create.extensions = -1ull;
> > + igt_assert_eq(create_ext_ioctl(i915, &create), -EFAULT);
> > +
> > + create.extensions = to_user_pointer(&ext);
> > + igt_assert_eq(create_ext_ioctl(i915, &create), -EINVAL);
> > +
> > + ext.param.param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY;
> > + if (create_ext_ioctl(i915, &create) != -ENODEV) {
> > + gem_context_destroy(i915, create.ctx_id);
> > +
> > + ext.base.next_extension = -1ull;
> > + igt_assert_eq(create_ext_ioctl(i915, &create), -EFAULT);
> > + ext.base.next_extension = to_user_pointer(&ext);
> > + igt_assert_eq(create_ext_ioctl(i915, &create), -E2BIG);
> > + ext.base.next_extension = 0;
> > +
> > + ext.param.value = 32;
> > + igt_assert_eq(create_ext_ioctl(i915, &create), 0);
> > +
> > + memset(&get, 0, sizeof(get));
> > + get.ctx_id = create.ctx_id;
> > + get.param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY;
> > + gem_context_get_param(i915, &get);
> > + igt_assert_eq(get.value, ext.param.value);
> > +
> > + gem_context_destroy(i915, create.ctx_id);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void check_single_timeline(int i915, uint32_t ctx, int num_engines)
> > +{
> > +#define RCS_TIMESTAMP (0x2000 + 0x358)
> > + const int gen = intel_gen(intel_get_drm_devid(i915));
> > + const int has_64bit_reloc = gen >= 8;
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 results = { .handle = gem_create(i915, 4096) };
> > + const uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
> > + int timeline = sw_sync_timeline_create();
> > + uint32_t last, *map;
> > +
> > + {
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf = {
> > + .buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&results),
> > + .buffer_count = 1,
> > + .rsvd1 = ctx,
> > + };
> > + gem_write(i915, results.handle, 0, &bbe, sizeof(bbe));
> > + gem_execbuf(i915, &execbuf);
> > + results.flags = EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (int i = 0; i < num_engines; i++) {
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj[2] = {
> > + results, /* write hazard lies! */
> > + { .handle = gem_create(i915, 4096) },
> > + };
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf = {
> > + .buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(obj),
> > + .buffer_count = 2,
> > + .rsvd1 = ctx,
> > + .rsvd2 = sw_sync_timeline_create_fence(timeline, num_engines - i),
> > + .flags = i | I915_EXEC_FENCE_IN,
> > + };
> > + uint64_t offset = results.offset + 4 * i;
> > + uint32_t *cs;
> > + int j = 0;
> > +
> > + cs = gem_mmap__cpu(i915, obj[1].handle, 0, 4096, PROT_WRITE);
> > +
> > + cs[j] = 0x24 << 23 | 1; /* SRM */
> > + if (has_64bit_reloc)
> > + cs[j]++;
> > + j++;
> > + cs[j++] = RCS_TIMESTAMP;
> > + cs[j++] = offset;
> > + if (has_64bit_reloc)
> > + cs[j++] = offset >> 32;
> > + cs[j++] = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
> > +
> > + munmap(cs, 4096);
> > +
> > + gem_execbuf(i915, &execbuf);
> > + gem_close(i915, obj[1].handle);
> > + close(execbuf.rsvd2);
> > + }
> > + close(timeline);
> > + gem_sync(i915, results.handle);
> > +
> > + map = gem_mmap__cpu(i915, results.handle, 0, 4096, PROT_READ);
> > + gem_set_domain(i915, results.handle, I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU, 0);
> > + gem_close(i915, results.handle);
> > +
> > + last = map[0];
> > + for (int i = 1; i < num_engines; i++) {
> > + igt_assert_f((map[i] - last) > 0,
> > + "Engine instance [%d] executed too early: this:%x, last:%x\n",
> > + i, map[i], last);
> > + last = map[i];
> > + }
>
> Hm.. aren't two sw fences (two seqnos) just a needless complication -
> since the execution order in the single timeline is controlled by
> submission order. The statement is true only when compounded with the
> fact that you signal both fences at the same time. I am thinking that if
> it wasn't a single timeline context what would happen. Fences would be
> signaled in order, but execution does not have to happen in order. That
> it does is a property of single timeline and not fence ordering. So two
> input fences with two seqnos is misleading. Single plug would do I think

But that would not detect the case when it was multiple timelines...

> Or you are thinking to nudge the driver to do the right thing? But in
> that case I think you'd need to manually advance the first seqno (2nd
> batch) first and wait a bit to check it hasn't been execute. Then signal
> the second seqno (first batch) and run the above check to see they have
> been executed in order.

The challenge is that we detect if the driver uses 2 timelines instead
of one. So that is what we setup to detect.

> > + munmap(map, 4096);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void iris_pipeline(int i915)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef I915_DEFINE_CONTEXT_PARAM_ENGINES
>
> Remove this I expect?

Depends on later header. Early plan was to have the bits and pieces
added piecemeal, but then I decided to add a full feature test.

> > +#define RCS0 {0, 0}
> > + I915_DEFINE_CONTEXT_PARAM_ENGINES(engines, 2) = {
> > + .engines = { RCS0, RCS0 }
> > + };
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_context_create_ext_setparam p_engines = {
> > + .base = {
> > + .name = I915_CONTEXT_CREATE_EXT_SETPARAM,
> > + .next_extension = 0, /* end of chain */
> > + },
> > + .param = {
> > + .param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_ENGINES,
> > + .value = to_user_pointer(&engines),
> > + .size = sizeof(engines),
> > + },
> > + };
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_context_create_ext_setparam p_recover = {
> > + .base = {
> > + .name =I915_CONTEXT_CREATE_EXT_SETPARAM,
> > + .next_extension = to_user_pointer(&p_engines),
> > + },
> > + .param = {
> > + .param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_RECOVERABLE,
> > + .value = 0,
> > + },
> > + };
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_context_create_ext_setparam p_prio = {
> > + .base = {
> > + .name =I915_CONTEXT_CREATE_EXT_SETPARAM,
> > + .next_extension = to_user_pointer(&p_recover),
> > + },
> > + .param = {
> > + .param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY,
> > + .value = 768,
> > + },
> > + };
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_context_create_ext create = {
> > + .flags = (I915_CONTEXT_CREATE_FLAGS_SINGLE_TIMELINE |
> > + I915_CONTEXT_CREATE_FLAGS_USE_EXTENSIONS),
> > + };
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_context_param get;
> > +
> > + igt_require(create_ext_ioctl(i915, &create) == 0);
>
> Context destroy here I think.
>
> > +
> > + create.extensions = to_user_pointer(&p_prio);
> > + igt_assert_eq(create_ext_ioctl(i915, &create), 0);
> > +
> > + memset(&get, 0, sizeof(get));
> > + get.ctx_id = create.ctx_id;
> > + get.param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY;
> > + gem_context_get_param(i915, &get);
> > + igt_assert_eq(get.value, p_prio.param.value);
> > +
> > + memset(&get, 0, sizeof(get));
> > + get.ctx_id = create.ctx_id;
> > + get.param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_RECOVERABLE;
> > + gem_context_get_param(i915, &get);
> > + igt_assert_eq(get.value, 0);
> > +
> > + check_single_timeline(i915, create.ctx_id, 2);
> > +
> > + gem_context_destroy(i915, create.ctx_id);
> > +#endif /* I915_DEFINE_CONTEXT_PARAM_ENGINES */
> > +}
> > +
> > igt_main
> > {
> > const int ncpus = sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN);
> > @@ -340,17 +543,15 @@ igt_main
> > memset(&create, 0, sizeof(create));
> > create.ctx_id = rand();
> > create.pad = 0;
> > - igt_assert_eq(__gem_context_create_local(fd, &create), 0);
> > + igt_assert_eq(create_ioctl(fd, &create), 0);
> > igt_assert(create.ctx_id != 0);
> > gem_context_destroy(fd, create.ctx_id);
> > }
> >
> > - igt_subtest("invalid-pad") {
> > - memset(&create, 0, sizeof(create));
> > - create.ctx_id = rand();
> > - create.pad = 1;
> > - igt_assert_eq(__gem_context_create_local(fd, &create), -EINVAL);
> > - }
> > + igt_subtest("ext-param")
> > + basic_ext_param(fd);
>
> basic-ext-param? Do we even rely on basic prefix these days?

basic test prefix is dead.
-Chris