[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_eio: 64 batches may be too many for some devices!

[Chris Wilson]

Actually measure how many batches we can fit into a ring before
blocking, or else we may end up hanging the device earlier than
expected!

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@intel.com>
---
 tests/i915/gem_eio.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_eio.c b/tests/i915/gem_eio.c
index 09059c311..534bd1899 100644
--- a/tests/i915/gem_eio.c
+++ b/tests/i915/gem_eio.c
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
 #include "igt_device.h"
 #include "igt_sysfs.h"
 #include "sw_sync.h"
+#include "i915/gem_ring.h"
 
 IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Test that specific ioctls report a wedged GPU (EIO).");
 
@@ -358,10 +359,15 @@ static void test_inflight(int fd, unsigned int wait)
 {
        int parent_fd = fd;
        unsigned int engine;
+       int max;
 
        igt_require_gem(fd);
        igt_require(gem_has_exec_fence(fd));
 
+       max = gem_measure_ring_inflight(fd, -1, 0);
+       igt_require(max > 1);
+       max = min(max - 1, 64);
+
        for_each_engine(parent_fd, engine) {
                const uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
                struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj[2];
@@ -389,7 +395,7 @@ static void test_inflight(int fd, unsigned int wait)
                execbuf.buffer_count = 2;
                execbuf.flags = engine | I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT;
 
-               for (unsigned int n = 0; n < ARRAY_SIZE(fence); n++) {
+               for (unsigned int n = 0; n < max; n++) {
                        gem_execbuf_wr(fd, &execbuf);
                        fence[n] = execbuf.rsvd2 >> 32;
                        igt_assert(fence[n] != -1);
@@ -397,7 +403,7 @@ static void test_inflight(int fd, unsigned int wait)
 
                check_wait(fd, obj[1].handle, wait);
 
-               for (unsigned int n = 0; n < ARRAY_SIZE(fence); n++) {
+               for (unsigned int n = 0; n < max; n++) {
                        igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_status(fence[n]), -EIO);
                        close(fence[n]);
                }
@@ -418,6 +424,11 @@ static void test_inflight_suspend(int fd)
        uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
        int fence[64]; /* conservative estimate of ring size */
        igt_spin_t *hang;
+       int max;
+
+       max = gem_measure_ring_inflight(fd, -1, 0);
+       igt_require(max > 1);
+       max = min(max - 1, 64);
 
        fd = gem_reopen_driver(fd);
        igt_require_gem(fd);
@@ -437,7 +448,7 @@ static void test_inflight_suspend(int fd)
        execbuf.buffer_count = 2;
        execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT;
 
-       for (unsigned int n = 0; n < ARRAY_SIZE(fence); n++) {
+       for (unsigned int n = 0; n < max; n++) {
                gem_execbuf_wr(fd, &execbuf);
                fence[n] = execbuf.rsvd2 >> 32;
                igt_assert(fence[n] != -1);
@@ -448,7 +459,7 @@ static void test_inflight_suspend(int fd)
 
        check_wait(fd, obj[1].handle, 10);
 
-       for (unsigned int n = 0; n < ARRAY_SIZE(fence); n++) {
+       for (unsigned int n = 0; n < max; n++) {
                igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_status(fence[n]), -EIO);
                close(fence[n]);
        }
-- 
2.20.1

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