Re: ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: Move load time stolen memory init earlier

From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: Move load time stolen memory init earlier
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:34:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1453743248.1054.43.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160125162127.GT11240@phenom.ffwll.local>

On ma, 2016-01-25 at 17:21 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 06:22:21PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On ti, 2016-01-19 at 13:49 +0000, Patchwork wrote:
> > > == Summary ==
> > > 
> > > Built on 00a0c7d1ae09b1259c7af8e5a088b0b225d805df drm-intel-
> > > nightly:
> > > 2016y-01m-18d-16h-50m-37s UTC integration manifest
> > > 
> > > Test gem_ctx_basic:
> > >                 pass       -> FAIL       (bdw-ultra)
> > 
> > Couldn't reproduce it on the same machine. To me it looks unrelated
> > as
> > it happened already several times for other patches, always on the
> > same
> > machine. These BAT results are not shown on the test's "long term"
> > history btw. I filed a bug: 
> 
> long term only shows changes, not all tests.

Ok, so I take that's changes for CI runs, but not for patchwork
initiated tests.

> Which means it didn't yet
> fail in -nightly, which is somewhat suspicious ... But I agree that
> this
> seems to have blown up a few times in other CI runs.

Ok, so based on that this patchset is good to go I guess.

Still not sure why the test fails. One thing I noticed is a bunch of
"gem_concurrent: drop caches" messages in dmesg before any test would
be even started. So I think something in gem_concurrent is not guarded
with igt_fixture{} and gets to run when piglit enumerates the subtests
(to get the BAT subtests). Not sure though if this has a negative
effect on anything.

--Imre

> -Daniel
> 
> > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93776
> > 
> > > Test kms_flip:
> > >         Subgroup basic-flip-vs-dpms:
> > >                 dmesg-warn -> PASS       (skl-i5k-2)
> > > Test pm_rpm:
> > >         Subgroup basic-rte:
> > >                 dmesg-warn -> PASS       (byt-nuc) UNSTABLE
> > > 
> > > bdw-
> > > nuci7        total:140  pass:131  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   sk
> > > ip:9
> > >   
> > > bdw-
> > > ultra        total:140  pass:132  dwarn:0   dfail:1   fail:1   sk
> > > ip:6
> > >   
> > > byt-
> > > nuc          total:143  pass:126  dwarn:2   dfail:0   fail:0   sk
> > > ip:1
> > > 5 
> > > hsw-
> > > brixbox      total:143  pass:136  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   sk
> > > ip:7
> > >   
> > > hsw-
> > > gt2          total:143  pass:139  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   sk
> > > ip:4
> > >   
> > > ilk-
> > > hp8440p      total:143  pass:102  dwarn:3   dfail:0   fail:0   sk
> > > ip:3
> > > 8 
> > > ivb-
> > > t430s        total:137  pass:124  dwarn:3   dfail:4   fail:0   sk
> > > ip:6
> > >   
> > > skl-i5k-
> > > 2        total:143  pass:134  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:8
> > >   
> > > snb-
> > > dellxps      total:143  pass:124  dwarn:5   dfail:0   fail:0   sk
> > > ip:1
> > > 4 
> > > snb-
> > > x220t        total:143  pass:124  dwarn:5   dfail:0   fail:1   sk
> > > ip:1
> > > 3 
> > > 
> > > Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/Patchwork_1220/
> > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> 
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx