On 5/28/20 8:49 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 28.05.20 um 15:05 schrieb Nirmoy Das:
This patch introduces fragmentation in the address range
and measures time taken by 10k insertions for each modes.
ig_frag() will fail if one of the mode takes more than 1 sec.
Output:
[ 37.326723] drm_mm:
On 5/28/20 6:04 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Nirmoy Das (2020-05-28 14:05:56)
This patch introduces fragmentation in the address range
and measures time taken by 10k insertions for each modes.
ig_frag() will fail if one of the mode takes more than 1 sec.
Output:
[ 37.326723] drm_mm: ig
This patch introduces fragmentation in the address range
and measures time taken by 10k insertions for each modes.
ig_frag() will fail if one of the mode takes more than 1 sec.
Output:
[ 37.326723] drm_mm: igt_sanitycheck - ok!
[ 37.326727] igt_debug 0x-0x0200: 51
Am 28.05.20 um 15:05 schrieb Nirmoy Das:
This patch introduces fragmentation in the address range
and measures time taken by 10k insertions for each modes.
ig_frag() will fail if one of the mode takes more than 1 sec.
Output:
[ 37.326723] drm_mm: igt_sanitycheck - ok!
[ 37.326727] igt_debu
Quoting Nirmoy Das (2020-05-28 14:05:56)
> This patch introduces fragmentation in the address range
> and measures time taken by 10k insertions for each modes.
>
> ig_frag() will fail if one of the mode takes more than 1 sec.
If you cc intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org, the test case will be run
by
Quoting Nirmoy Das (2020-05-28 14:05:56)
> This patch introduces fragmentation in the address range
> and measures time taken by 10k insertions for each modes.
>
> ig_frag() will fail if one of the mode takes more than 1 sec.
>
> Output:
>
> [ 37.326723] drm_mm: igt_sanitycheck - ok!
> [ 37.
