public inbox for intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: John.C.Harrison@Intel.com, IGT-Dev@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org
Cc: Intel-GFX@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/i915: Skip gem_exec_fair on GuC based platforms
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 08:45:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c2ffbee7-7fc6-7556-5351-295d85b67254@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211013224317.943625-1-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>


On 13/10/2021 23:43, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote:
> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
> 
> The gem_exec_fair test is specifically testing scheduler algorithm
> performance. However, GuC does not implement the same algorithm as
> execlist mode and this test is not applicable. So, until sw arch
> approves a new algorithm and it is implemented in GuC, stop running
> the test.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
> ---
>   tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c | 6 ++++++
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c
> index ef5a450f6..ca9c73c6e 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_fair.c
> @@ -1314,6 +1314,12 @@ igt_main
>   		igt_require(gem_scheduler_enabled(i915));
>   		igt_require(gem_scheduler_has_ctx_priority(i915));
>   
> +		/*
> +		 * These tests are for a specific scheduling model which is
> +		 * not currently implemented by GuC. So skip on GuC platforms.
> +		 */
> +		igt_require(intel_gen(intel_get_drm_devid(i915)) < 12);

I don't understand why do patches which claim Tigerlake is a GuC 
submission platform keep appearing?

It's a stupid patch to use it against, but as a matter of principle this 
has to receive a clear NACK, from me at least.

There are so many ways to avoid the nack, but factually incorrect commit 
message and code comment just have no place so IMO cannot go in.

We can look at on which platforms it passes and on which platforms it 
mostly fails and decide what to do about it.

Or just use debugfs to check whether GuC is in use, IGT does it all the 
time and it's not ABI. Or improve the skip condition to include gen 
_and_ _platform_ checks.

Anything but proposing patches which are factually incorrect.

Regards,

Tvrtko

> +
>   		cfg = intel_ctx_cfg_all_physical(i915);
>   
>   		igt_info("CS timestamp frequency: %d\n",
> 

      parent reply	other threads:[~2021-10-14  7:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-13 22:43 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/i915: Skip gem_exec_fair on GuC based platforms John.C.Harrison
2021-10-13 22:53 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2021-10-14  1:07   ` John Harrison
2021-10-14  3:21     ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2021-10-14  7:45 ` Tvrtko Ursulin [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=c2ffbee7-7fc6-7556-5351-295d85b67254@linux.intel.com \
    --to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=IGT-Dev@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org \
    --cc=Intel-GFX@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org \
    --cc=John.C.Harrison@Intel.com \
    /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