[PATCH i-g-t] intel-ci: Drop gem_ctx_switch/heavy

[PATCH i-g-t] intel-ci: Drop gem_ctx_switch/heavy

[Chris Wilson]

Th heavy variant of gem_ctx_switch does little more than provide an
alternate timing for the basic gem_ctx_switch; the timing only effects
the HW and does not stress the driver any differently. As such,
including gem_ctx_switch/heavy provides no more basic coverage for BAT
over and above the default gem_ctx_switch and
i915_selftests/live_contexts.

It takes around 45s, of a 600s total target time for BAT.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
---
 tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist b/tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist
index 6d42792c6..da3c4c8ed 100644
--- a/tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist
+++ b/tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist
@@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ igt@gem_ctx_exec@basic
 igt@gem_ctx_param@basic
 igt@gem_ctx_param@basic-default
 igt@gem_ctx_switch@basic-default
-igt@gem_ctx_switch@basic-default-heavy
 igt@gem_exec_basic@basic-blt
 igt@gem_exec_basic@basic-bsd
 igt@gem_exec_basic@basic-bsd1
-- 
2.20.1

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

Re: [PATCH i-g-t] intel-ci: Drop gem_ctx_switch/heavy

[Mika Kuoppala]

Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:

> Th heavy variant of gem_ctx_switch does little more than provide an
> alternate timing for the basic gem_ctx_switch; the timing only effects
> the HW and does not stress the driver any differently. As such,
> including gem_ctx_switch/heavy provides no more basic coverage for BAT
> over and above the default gem_ctx_switch and
> i915_selftests/live_contexts.
>
> It takes around 45s, of a 600s total target time for BAT.

I looked back drm-tip results and also did bugzilla searches.
drm-tip is all green for recent past and those 2 bugzilla
entries this test was in any way mentioned, are issues
where this test didn't play any particular role itself.

Heavy seems to indicate only bigger contexts for switching
so I agree with the timing argument.

These seconds are more well spent elsewhere.

Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>

>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist b/tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist
> index 6d42792c6..da3c4c8ed 100644
> --- a/tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist
> +++ b/tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist
> @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ igt@gem_ctx_exec@basic
>  igt@gem_ctx_param@basic
>  igt@gem_ctx_param@basic-default
>  igt@gem_ctx_switch@basic-default
> -igt@gem_ctx_switch@basic-default-heavy
>  igt@gem_exec_basic@basic-blt
>  igt@gem_exec_basic@basic-bsd
>  igt@gem_exec_basic@basic-bsd1
> -- 
> 2.20.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx