From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90F4FD58D5E for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 15:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C76210E67A; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 15:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="nAwNTcNl"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.14]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB9A410E67A for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 15:36:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1732548992; x=1764084992; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=eSGYChHQK5QwCnn76tEwBvbdf4UH9thFDOQ1YhoOZfw=; b=nAwNTcNl/U9CHdiU95sZyAEMTxNFYulFwhsINt8ch/XWup/4HjL7oL4W mBEkSeXCXlIuMzntGT3TLvaRzc2esV0kfP8OCe/zvXWUaZTkGAfx8uFuw z42qHcaMceOhiisiNYc1LgXu1v5i1iIowm05ay7kvkHq3SJNSHy3xZleT iXobKcdeqFqJ8yVHMd13uEbP9u9GJj+cqFpJOSXFKs8skeNZ/DDnDrzYK FJJMjF1BhxrIZqnhHrgQU0V1sWtYHrFiTvmMc35+BAt2/gR5kBQbjiHFz SDrJC3riJKbOSwdbJP01yUjvGLda7rTf5MMl2OOlNEYO+kIED2yyvha8Q w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: xLJ7KquMQseX6+wtboLt7g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: UZ+63oWRTSK3vaMncz25rQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11267"; a="36444452" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,183,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="36444452" Received: from fmviesa001.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.141]) by orvoesa106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Nov 2024 07:36:32 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 4bOPRdZ2QOioAhU6Et0r3A== X-CSE-MsgGUID: rOXNGwjDSUKTUUTNaJst3g== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,183,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="122241991" Received: from mjarzebo-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.246.15]) by smtpauth.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Nov 2024 07:36:29 -0800 From: Jani Nikula To: Lucas De Marchi Cc: Matthew Auld , intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, Rodrigo Vivi , ryszard.knop@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe: Sort again the info flags In-Reply-To: <4urb7iogs2b2wkznlix2jnhflgb7izryfzsp2yz2ux4bx7xv5l@lt2w26ab52af> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <20241118223314.1969166-1-lucas.demarchi@intel.com> <7f8fccfd-cb92-47bd-b6d3-bbed2a11094e@intel.com> <87wmgy14oe.fsf@intel.com> <87a5ds26zy.fsf@intel.com> <4urb7iogs2b2wkznlix2jnhflgb7izryfzsp2yz2ux4bx7xv5l@lt2w26ab52af> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 17:36:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87frnfxr45.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel Xe graphics driver List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-xe-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-xe" On Thu, 21 Nov 2024, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 12:53:05PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >>On Wed, 20 Nov 2024, Lucas De Marchi wrote: >>> IMO we should turn all these "checks run on the build machine" rather >>> than "checks executed on the target hosts" part of the hooks infra.... >>> because that is much more visible than scripts hidden inside the CI >>> pipeline. And then people can even run on their own machines. >> >>Going on a slight tangent, thinking aloud. Could we split the load more >>between running on target and running in, say, qemu? Like, there's no > > why qemu? does it need HW access? If not, it should just run in the > build machine that uses UML for "virtualization". Just tossing ideas! :) >>point in running some of the drm selftests on each target host. And >>could we move more towards splitting igt this direction too? > > on the xe side we are already running the drm kunit tests that don't > need HW access: > > Example: > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/141644/ > > Look at CI.KUnit: > > [11:31:03] Starting KUnit Kernel (1/1)... > [11:31:03] ============================================================ > Running tests with: > $ .kunit/linux kunit.enable=1 mem=1G console=tty kunit_shutdown=halt > [11:31:03] ================== drm_buddy (7 subtests) ================== > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_buddy_alloc_limit > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_buddy_alloc_optimistic > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_buddy_alloc_pessimistic > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_buddy_alloc_pathological > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_buddy_alloc_contiguous > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_buddy_alloc_clear > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_buddy_alloc_range_bias > [11:31:03] ==================== [PASSED] drm_buddy ==================== > [11:31:03] ============= drm_cmdline_parser (40 subtests) ============= > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_cmdline_force_d_only > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_cmdline_force_D_only_dvi > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_cmdline_force_D_only_hdmi > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_cmdline_force_D_only_not_digital > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_cmdline_force_e_only > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_cmdline_res > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_cmdline_res_vesa > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_cmdline_res_vesa_rblank > [11:31:03] [PASSED] drm_test_cmdline_res_rblank > ... > > > These are SW-only tests that are already executed as part of each patch > series. We also have SW-only tests for xe in the same place: > > [11:30:38] Starting KUnit Kernel (1/1)... > [11:30:38] ============================================================ > Running tests with: > $ .kunit/linux kunit.enable=1 mem=1G console=tty kunit_shutdown=halt > [11:30:39] =================== guc_dbm (7 subtests) =================== > [11:30:39] [PASSED] test_empty > ... > > Is this what you mean by drm selftests or did I misinterpret it? Yes! BR, Jani. > > Looking at https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/shards-all.html?testfilter=selftest > it seems some of the tests need HW access? > > In xe we split what is SW-only from what needs HW access because of > this... all kunit tests that need HW are inside xe_live_ktest, that > provides the igt integration (there's also a slight preference on not > using kunit for that too, but that varies depending who you talk to and > how much it's a unit vs integration test). Tests that are SW-only are > executed by build machines, they don't need to run on each target. > > Lucas De Marchi > >> >>BR, >>Jani. >> >> >>-- >>Jani Nikula, Intel -- Jani Nikula, Intel