From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH igt] igt/drv_hangman: Use manual error-state generation
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:24:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161024082428.GB20761@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161020132256.GC12299@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 02:22:56PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:14:30PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:46:01AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:29:05AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:07:39AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > > For the basic error state, we only desire that an error state be created
> > > > > following a hang. For that purpose, we do not need a real hang (slow
> > > > > 6-12s) but can inject one instead (fast <1s).
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > >
> > > > Should we instead speed up hangcheck? I think there's lots of value in
> > > > making sure not just error dumping, but also hang detection works somewhat
> > > > in BAT. Since if it doesn't any attempt at a full run will lead to pretty
> > > > serious disasters. And I have this dream that BAT is the gating thing
> > > > deciding whether a patch series deserves a complete pre-merge run ;-)
> > >
> > > We have full-hang detection in BAT elsewhere as well. This particular
> > > test was only asking the question "do we generate an error state", hence
> > > why I felt it was safe to just do that and skip a simulated hang.
> >
> > Hm, is it worth it then in BAT? Or does the other test not check whether
> > the error capture part was mildly successful? Might be worth it to just
> > combine them (in BAT) for even more time saved. Either way ack on this.
>
> No, the other tests are to check we survive a hang, not that we generate
> post-mortem error state. This test takes approximately 0.2s on a slow
> device (at mild debug levels), and I think is concise enough to keep
> separate.
Ok, makes sense.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-24 8:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-20 9:07 [PATCH igt] igt/drv_hangman: Use manual error-state generation Chris Wilson
2016-10-20 9:29 ` Daniel Vetter
2016-10-20 9:46 ` Chris Wilson
2016-10-20 10:05 ` Chris Wilson
2016-10-20 13:14 ` Daniel Vetter
2016-10-20 13:22 ` Chris Wilson
2016-10-24 8:24 ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
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=20161024082428.GB20761@phenom.ffwll.local \
--to=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--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