From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-xb32.google.com (mail-yb1-xb32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b32]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F41C6E207 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:30:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb32.google.com with SMTP id m9so4151992ybo.5 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:30:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210614163704.365989-1-jason@jlekstrand.net> <20210614163902.366168-19-jason@jlekstrand.net> <87o8c65ywy.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <87mtrq5xsl.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <87lf7a5xgo.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <87lf7a5xgo.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> From: Jason Ekstrand Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:30:42 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 68/77] igt/dummyload: Require an intel_ctx_t for POLL_RUN and !ALL_ENGINES List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" To: "Dixit, Ashutosh" Cc: IGT GPU Tools List-ID: On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:56 PM Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:49:14 -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > > > > I have another related question/observation. If what I am saying above is > > indeed true, is the "ctx_id" field in "struct igt_spin_factory" ever > > really used? If not we should delete it from the struct and we can get rid > > of these asserts. > > > > This is because I am saying above that we have an igt_assert(opts->ctx) > > above in igt_spin_factory() when "opts->engine != ALL_ENGINES" and then we > > have another igt_assert(opts->ctx) in emit_recursive_batch() when > > "opts->engine == ALL_ENGINES". So it appears we must always have > > intel_ctx_t and can never use the "ctx_id" field in "struct > > igt_spin_factory" so it should be removed. > > > > So appears the spinner interface will always need a intel_ctx_t (meaning > > more code changes). > > Sorry for harping on this again. Note that even with the code in this > series test like igt@gem_ctx_exec@norecovery (which have not been modified) > should now be broken. The code in this series is: Yup. That was a miss. Not sure why CI didn't catch it. The test runs reliably on my SKL box. That test will be fixed in the next revision. --Jason > if ((opts->flags & IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN) && opts->engine != ALL_ENGINES) { > unsigned int class; > > igt_assert(opts->ctx); > class = intel_ctx_engine_class(opts->ctx, opts->engine); > igt_require(gem_class_can_store_dword(fd, class)); > } > > igt@gem_ctx_exec@norecovery uses IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN, does not use > ALL_ENGINES and uses ctx_id instead of opts->ctx, so the assert above will > fire. _______________________________________________ igt-dev mailing list igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev