From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Handle sync_seqno correctly when
 seqno has wrapped.
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:52:59 -0800
Message-ID: <20121113085259.448df5cb@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1352814696-2154-1-git-send-email-mika.kuoppala@intel.com>
	<20121113083926.340d40d5@bwidawsk.net>
	<CAKMK7uGY17_1WVOgqDz7ZDO8mLwQYZK076Bh32g3u_=mp_sWZg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from shiva.chad-versace.us (209-20-75-48.static.cloud-ips.com
	[209.20.75.48])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46C39E946
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:53:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uGY17_1WVOgqDz7ZDO8mLwQYZK076Bh32g3u_=mp_sWZg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:45:14 +0100
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> >
> > Also as an overall comment, I want the patches to guarantee to catch
> > the bug you found, which I think with the randomness of
> > gem_stress - isn't. Specifically, we want the waiting ring to be
> > waiting on a pre-wrapped value. Maybe I missed that guarantee, but if
> > there is a quick/dirty way to make that happen, that would better than
> > running an arbitrary number of gem_stress tests.
> 
> I think running just gem_stress is ok - as long as the test has a
> reasonable good chance of blowing up. On future platforms something
> else than semaphores might blow up, or we might simply botch a seqno
> comparison. So imo having a test that just beats a bit on the
> systems+the wrap-around after each boot/resume should give us
> excellent coverage, and trying to engineer a perfect test for the
> single failure mode we now have in front of us might actually reduce
> coverage.
> -Daniel

I didn't say don't run gem_stress...

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center