Re: [PATCH] tests: Add gem_exec_params

Daniel Vetter
2014-04-24T07:18:26Z

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 12:32 -0600, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> This fills all the gaps we've had in our execbuf testing. Overflow
>> testing of the various arrays is already done by gem_reloc_overflow.
>>
>> Also add kms_flip_tiling to .gitignore.
>>
>> This will cause a bunch of failures since current kernels don't catch
>> all fallout.
>>
>
> Very good patch. Except some small concerns, it is OK to me.

Thanks for your comments, replies below.
-Daniel

>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
>> ---
>> tests/.gitignore | 2 +
>> tests/Makefile.sources | 1 +
>> tests/gem_exec_params.c | 212 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 215 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 tests/gem_exec_params.c
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/.gitignore b/tests/.gitignore
>> index 146bab06b565..4c50bae93aa3 100644
>> --- a/tests/.gitignore
>> +++ b/tests/.gitignore
>> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ gem_exec_blt
>> gem_exec_faulting_reloc
>> gem_exec_lut_handle
>> gem_exec_nop
>> +gem_exec_params
>> gem_exec_parse
>> gem_fd_exhaustion
>> gem_fenced_exec_thrash
>> @@ -113,6 +114,7 @@ kms_addfb
>> kms_cursor_crc
>> kms_fbc_crc
>> kms_flip
>> +kms_flip_tiling
>> kms_pipe_crc_basic
>> kms_plane
>> kms_render
>> diff --git a/tests/Makefile.sources b/tests/Makefile.sources
>> index c957ace2ace0..9b2d7cff1113 100644
>> --- a/tests/Makefile.sources
>> +++ b/tests/Makefile.sources
>> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ TESTS_progs_M = \
>> gem_exec_bad_domains \
>> gem_exec_faulting_reloc \
>> gem_exec_nop \
>> + gem_exec_params \
>> gem_exec_parse \
>> gem_fenced_exec_thrash \
>> gem_fence_thrash \
>> diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_params.c b/tests/gem_exec_params.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..b1d996c530f5
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tests/gem_exec_params.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (c) 2014 Intel Corporation
>> + *
>> + * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
>> + * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
>> + * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation
>> + * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
>> + * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
>> + * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
>> + *
>> + * The above copyright notice and this permission notice (including the next
>> + * paragraph) shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the
>> + * Software.
>> + *
>> + * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
>> + * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
>> + * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
>> + * THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
>> + * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
>> + * FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS
>> + * IN THE SOFTWARE.
>> + *
>> + * Authors:
>> + * Daniel Vetter
>> + *
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <unistd.h>
>> +#include <stdlib.h>
>> +#include <stdint.h>
>> +#include <stdio.h>
>> +#include <string.h>
>> +#include <fcntl.h>
>> +#include <inttypes.h>
>> +#include <errno.h>
>> +#include <sys/stat.h>
>> +#include <sys/ioctl.h>
>> +#include <sys/time.h>
>> +#include "drm.h"
>> +
>> +#include "ioctl_wrappers.h"
>> +#include "drmtest.h"
>> +#include "intel_io.h"
>> +#include "intel_chipset.h"
>> +#include "igt_aux.h"
>> +
>> +#define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_VEBOX (4<<0)
>> +
>> +struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf;
>> +struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 gem_exec[1];
>> +uint32_t batch[2] = {MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END};
>> +uint32_t handle, devid;
>> +int fd;
>> +
>> +igt_main
>> +{
>> + igt_fixture {
>> + fd = drm_open_any();
>> +
>> + devid = intel_get_drm_devid(fd);
>> +
>> + handle = gem_create(fd, 4096);
>> + gem_write(fd, handle, 0, batch, sizeof(batch));
>> +
>> + gem_exec[0].handle = handle;
>> + gem_exec[0].relocation_count = 0;
>> + gem_exec[0].relocs_ptr = 0;
>> + gem_exec[0].alignment = 0;
>> + gem_exec[0].offset = 0;
>> + gem_exec[0].flags = 0;
>> + gem_exec[0].rsvd1 = 0;
>> + gem_exec[0].rsvd2 = 0;
>> +
>> + execbuf.buffers_ptr = (uintptr_t)gem_exec;
>> + execbuf.buffer_count = 1;
>> + execbuf.batch_start_offset = 0;
>> + execbuf.batch_len = 8;
>
> Can we use the sizeof(batch) instead of 8?

We use noop batches like this all over the place and it's kinda all
hard-coded magic numbers. Constructing execbufs manually is one of
those areas in igt which are rather painful, but thus far I just
didn't come up with a nice approach to it.

Hence I think leaving all the brittle magic in there is ok ;-)

>> + execbuf.cliprects_ptr = 0;
>> + execbuf.num_cliprects = 0;
>> + execbuf.DR1 = 0;
>> + execbuf.DR4 = 0;
>> + execbuf.flags = 0;
>> + i915_execbuffer2_set_context_id(execbuf, 0);
>> + execbuf.rsvd2 = 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + igt_subtest("control") {
>> + igt_assert(drmIoctl(fd,
>> + DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER2,
>> + &execbuf) == 0);
>> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER;
>> + igt_assert(drmIoctl(fd,
>> + DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER2,
>> + &execbuf) == 0);
>> + }
>> +
>> +#define RUN_FAIL(expected_errno) do { \
>> + igt_assert(drmIoctl(fd, \
>> + DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER2, \
>> + &execbuf) == -1); \
>> + igt_assert_cmpint(errno, ==, expected_errno); \
>> + } while(0)
>> +
>> + igt_subtest("no-bsd") {
>> + igt_require(!gem_has_bsd(fd));
>> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_BSD;
>> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
>> + }
>> + igt_subtest("no-blt") {
>> + igt_require(!gem_has_blt(fd));
>> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_BLT;
>> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
>> + }
>> + igt_subtest("no-vebox") {
>> + igt_require(!gem_has_vebox(fd));
>> + execbuf.flags = LOCAL_I915_EXEC_VEBOX;
>> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
>> + }
>> + igt_subtest("invalid-ring") {
>> + execbuf.flags = LOCAL_I915_EXEC_VEBOX+1;
>> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
>> + }
>> +
>> + igt_subtest("rel-constants-invalid-ring") {
>> + igt_require(gem_has_bsd(fd));
>> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_BSD | I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_ABSOLUTE;
>> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
>> + }
>> +
>> + igt_subtest("rel-constants-invalid-rel-gen5") {
>> + igt_require(intel_gen(devid) > 5);
>> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_REL_SURFACE;
>> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
>> + }
>> +
>> + igt_subtest("rel-constants-invalid") {
>> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | (I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_REL_SURFACE+1);
>> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
>
> It seems that the exec.flags is the same as "I915_EXEC_BSD |
> I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_REL_SURFACE). And then it is similar to subtest of
> rel-constants-invalid-ring. Not sure whether you are hoping to set the
> flag as "I915_EXEC_RENDER | I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_MASK"?

They're three completely different checks:
1. checks for invalid flags on rings other than RENDER
2. checks for a specific invalid flag which doesn't exist on gen5+ any more
3. checks for a completely invalid flag (notice the + 1) on any platform

All three cases hit different conditions in the execbuf validataion code.

>> + }
>> +
>> + igt_subtest("sol-reset-invalid") {
>> + igt_require(gem_has_bsd(fd));
>> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_BSD | I915_EXEC_GEN7_SOL_RESET;
>> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
>> + }
>> +
>> + igt_subtest("sol-reset-not-gen7") {
>> + igt_require(intel_gen(devid) != 7);
>> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | I915_EXEC_GEN7_SOL_RESET;
>> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
>> + }
>> +
>> + igt_subtest("secure-non-root") {
>> + igt_fork(child, 1) {
>> + igt_drop_root();
>> +
>> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | I915_EXEC_SECURE;
>> + RUN_FAIL(EPERM);
>> + }
>> +
>> + igt_waitchildren();
>> + }
>> +
>> + igt_subtest("secure-non-master") {
>> + do_or_die(drmDropMaster(fd));
>> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | I915_EXEC_SECURE;
>> + RUN_FAIL(EPERM);
>> + do_or_die(drmSetMaster(fd));
>> + igt_assert(drmIoctl(fd,
>> + DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER2,
>> + &execbuf) == 0);
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* HANDLE_LUT and NO_RELOC are already exercised by gem_exec_lut_handle */
>> +
>> + igt_subtest("invalid-flag") {
>> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | (I915_EXEC_HANDLE_LUT << 1);
>> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
>> + }
>> +
>
> Can we use (random() & __I915_EXEC_UNKNOWN_FLAGS) for the invalid-flag
> subtest?

I've picked the very next flag since that will be the one we use for
the next execbuf feature. If people fail to update this testcase then
it will fail and I have a good excuse to scold them for not writing
and running igt testcase ;-)

So random() is imo less useful here.

>> + /* rsvd1 aka context id is already exercised by gem_ctx_bad_exec */
>> +
>> + igt_subtest("cliprects-invalid") {
>> + igt_require(intel_gen(devid) >= 5);
>> + execbuf.flags = 0;
>> + execbuf.num_cliprects = 1;
>> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
>> + execbuf.num_cliprects = 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> +#define DIRT(name) \
>> + igt_subtest(#name "-dirt") { \
>> + execbuf.flags = 0; \
>> + execbuf.name = 1; \
>> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL); \
>> + execbuf.name = 0; \
>> + }
>> +
>> + DIRT(rsvd2);
>> + DIRT(cliprects_ptr);
>> + DIRT(DR1);
>> + DIRT(DR4);
>> +#undef DIRT
>> +
>> +#undef RUN_FAIL
>> +
>> + igt_fixture {
>> + gem_close(fd, handle);
>> +
>> + close(fd);
>> + }
>> +}
>
>

--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch