Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-02-25 18:08:14) > > On 24/02/2020 21:56, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Check that if we have to remove a hostile request from a non-persistent > > context, we do so without harming any other concurrent users. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > --- > > + /* All other spinners should be left unharmed */ > > + gem_quiescent_gpu(i915); > > + igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_wait(fence, reset_timeout_ms), 0); > > + igt_assert_eq(sync_fence_status(fence), 1); > > I don't quite get this test. Why would other spinners be unharmed? They > are non-preemptible as well. And non-persistent spinner is alone on the > engine. So what aspect you wanted to test?
Per-engine reset. Termination of the non-persistent context should be clean and precise, we don't allow creation of non-persistent contexts unless we have that level of surgical precision. Otherwise it becomes a new attack vector. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
