[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] tests/gem_exec_params: test overly large batch

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] tests/gem_exec_params: test overly large batch

[Matthew Auld]

See if can make something explode with too large batch (1ULL << 32),
while also making the batch_len implicit. We should also try each engine
since batch_len seems to have different interactions related to that.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
---
 tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c
index f8a94074..e00bbd04 100644
--- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c
+++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static void mmapped(int i915)
 	gem_close(i915, buf);
 }
 
-static uint32_t batch_create_size(int fd, uint32_t size)
+static uint32_t batch_create_size(int fd, uint64_t size)
 {
 	const uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
 	uint32_t handle;
@@ -317,6 +317,32 @@ static void test_invalid_batch_start(int fd)
 	gem_close(fd, exec.handle);
 }
 
+static void test_larger_than_life_batch(int fd)
+{
+       uint64_t size = 1ULL << 32; /* batch_len is __u32 as per the ABI */
+       struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 exec = {
+               .handle = batch_create_size(fd, size),
+       };
+       struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf = {
+               .buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&exec),
+               .buffer_count = 1,
+       };
+
+       /*
+	* batch_len seems like it can have different interaction depending on
+	* the engine and HW.
+	*/
+       for_each_engine(e, fd) {
+	       execbuf.flags = eb_ring(e);
+	       /* Make the batch_len implicit */
+	       __gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);
+
+	       gem_sync(fd, exec.handle);
+       }
+
+       gem_close(fd, exec.handle);
+}
+
 struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf;
 struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 gem_exec[1];
 uint32_t batch[2] = {MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END};
@@ -586,6 +612,9 @@ igt_main
 	igt_subtest("invalid-batch-start-offset")
 		test_invalid_batch_start(fd);
 
+	igt_subtest("larger-than-life-batch")
+		test_larger_than_life_batch(fd);
+
 #define DIRT(name) \
 	igt_subtest(#name "-dirt") { \
 		execbuf.flags = 0; \
-- 
2.26.2

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH] tests/gem_exec_params: test overly large batch

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Matthew Auld (2020-10-13 13:11:39)
> See if can make something explode with too large batch (1ULL << 32),
> while also making the batch_len implicit. We should also try each engine
> since batch_len seems to have different interactions related to that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c
> index f8a94074..e00bbd04 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c
> @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static void mmapped(int i915)
>         gem_close(i915, buf);
>  }
>  
> -static uint32_t batch_create_size(int fd, uint32_t size)
> +static uint32_t batch_create_size(int fd, uint64_t size)
>  {
>         const uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
>         uint32_t handle;
> @@ -317,6 +317,32 @@ static void test_invalid_batch_start(int fd)
>         gem_close(fd, exec.handle);
>  }
>  
> +static void test_larger_than_life_batch(int fd)
> +{
> +       uint64_t size = 1ULL << 32; /* batch_len is __u32 as per the ABI */
> +       struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 exec = {
> +               .handle = batch_create_size(fd, size),
> +       };
> +       struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf = {
> +               .buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&exec),
> +               .buffer_count = 1,
> +       };


Needs intel_require_memory(2, size, CHECK_RAM)

> +
> +       /*
> +       * batch_len seems like it can have different interaction depending on
> +       * the engine and HW.
> +       */
> +       for_each_engine(e, fd) {
> +              execbuf.flags = eb_ring(e);
> +              /* Make the batch_len implicit */
> +              __gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);

Expect success.

> +
> +              gem_sync(fd, exec.handle);

?

If you just want to be sure the system is idle, put it after the loop.
Otherwise it doesn't/shouldn't affect the interpretation of the params
(if paranoid, do both, though to ensure it is active at the time, you
would need a spinner).
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for tests/gem_exec_params: test overly large batch

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: tests/gem_exec_params: test overly large batch
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/82626/
State : failure

== Summary ==

Applying: tests/gem_exec_params: test overly large batch
error: sha1 information is lacking or useless (tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c).
error: could not build fake ancestor
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 tests/gem_exec_params: test overly large batch
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".


_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH] tests/gem_exec_params: test overly large batch

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Chris Wilson (2020-10-13 13:21:55)
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +       * batch_len seems like it can have different interaction depending on
> > +       * the engine and HW.
> > +       */
> > +       for_each_engine(e, fd) {
> > +              execbuf.flags = eb_ring(e);
> > +              /* Make the batch_len implicit */
> > +              __gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);
> 
> Expect success.

Except for when batch > GTT size. igt_require(gem_gtt_size() > 4G) ?
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx