From: David Weinehall <david.weinehall@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t v4 2/3] lib/igt_core: Unify handling of slow/combinatorial tests
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:40:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160211134055.GB2330@boom> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160211130414.GD29294@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:04:14PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:09:33PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > +enum {
> > + /* The set of tests run if nothing else is specified */
> > + SUBTEST_TYPE_NORMAL = 1 << 0,
> > + /* Basic Acceptance Testing set */
> > + SUBTEST_TYPE_BASIC = 1 << 1,
> > + /* Tests that are very slow */
> > + SUBTEST_TYPE_SLOW = 1 << 2,
>
> I still feel that slow isn't a useful descriminant for tests. Off the
> opt of my head, I would like
>
> HANG,
> SWAP,
> STRESS (this is too also undefined)
>
> that should cover the majority of the GEM cases. Looking at kms_flip
> should also offer a few categories.
As I said the first time I posted this patch, I'm open to both
alternative names and help with categorising the subtests.
> As for gem_concurrent_blit, I basically expect to
> have h->subtest_flags | p->subtest_flags | subtest_flags.
>
> I also expect QA to run the full gem_concurrent_blit anyway since it is
> showing up regressions from over a year ago.
Yeah, I did a partial run of the full set yesterday and spotted about
150 failed tests within an hour of so. After that I had to abort the
test to continue with other work on that machine.
But it's fairly obvious that the limited set is a lot better tested.
Kind regards, David
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-11 13:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-11 11:09 [PATCH i-g-t v4 0/3] Unify slow/combinatorial test handling David Weinehall
2016-02-11 11:09 ` [PATCH i-g-t v4 1/3] tests/gem_concurrent_blit: rename gem_concurrent_all David Weinehall
2016-02-11 11:09 ` [PATCH i-g-t v4 2/3] lib/igt_core: Unify handling of slow/combinatorial tests David Weinehall
2016-02-11 13:04 ` Chris Wilson
2016-02-11 13:40 ` David Weinehall [this message]
2016-02-16 15:45 ` Daniel Vetter
2016-02-18 8:42 ` David Weinehall
2016-02-11 11:09 ` [PATCH i-g-t v4 3/3] tests/gem_concurrent_all: Remove gem_concurrent_all.c David Weinehall
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160211134055.GB2330@boom \
--to=david.weinehall@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox