| Message ID | 20200710093234.1438712-4-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [i-g-t,1/6] lib/i915: Report unknown device as the future | expand |
On 10/07/2020 10:32, Chris Wilson wrote: > With an upcoming change, we can relax the rule about handles not being > duplicated in the execocbj[]. Duplicate handles must not otherwise > conflict in their placements (e.g. two EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED at different > offsets), but otherwise if they are able to be resolved to the same GPU > address, then the operation is harmless and decreed legal. > > Since this is a relaxation in the negative ABI, update the test case to > allow the permissible duplicate handles. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > --- > tests/i915/gem_close.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_close.c b/tests/i915/gem_close.c > index 4fdc1ad79..a9bf2d2d4 100644 > --- a/tests/i915/gem_close.c > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_close.c > @@ -24,21 +24,57 @@ > #include "i915/gem.h" > #include "igt.h" > > -static bool has_duplicate(int err) > +static int batch_create(int fd) > +{ > + const uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END; > + uint32_t handle; > + > + handle = gem_create(fd, 4096); > + gem_write(fd, handle, 0, &bbe, sizeof(bbe)); > + > + return handle; > +} > + > +static int allows_duplicate(int fd) > +{ > + struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj[2] = { > + { .handle = batch_create(fd), }, > + }; > + struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf = { > + .buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(obj), > + .buffer_count = 1, > + }; > + int err; > + > + gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf); > + > + obj[1] = obj[0]; > + execbuf.buffer_count = 2; > + > + err = __gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf); > + gem_close(fd, obj[0].handle); > + > + return err; > +} > + > +static bool is_duplicate(int err) > { > return err == -EINVAL || err == -EALREADY; > } > > static void test_many_handles(int fd) > { > - uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END; > struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf; > struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj[2]; > uint32_t clones[128]; /* XXX try with 1024 */ > uint32_t original; > + int expected; > + > + expected = allows_duplicate(fd); > + if (expected) > + igt_assert(is_duplicate(expected)); > > - original = gem_create(fd, 4096); > - gem_write(fd, original, 0, &bbe, sizeof(bbe)); > + original = batch_create(fd); > > memset(&execbuf, 0, sizeof(execbuf)); > execbuf.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(obj); > @@ -54,7 +90,8 @@ static void test_many_handles(int fd) > gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf); > } > > - /* We do not allow the sam object to be referenced multiple times > + /* > + * We do not allow the same object to be referenced multiple times > * within an execbuf; hence why this practice of cloning a handle > * is only found within test cases. > */ > @@ -62,11 +99,11 @@ static void test_many_handles(int fd) > obj[0].handle = original; > for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(clones); i++) { > obj[1].handle = clones[i]; > - igt_assert(has_duplicate(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf))); > + igt_assert_eq(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf), expected); > } > /* Any other clone pair should also be detected */ > obj[1].handle = clones[0]; /* (last, first) */ > - igt_assert(has_duplicate(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf))); > + igt_assert_eq(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf), expected); > execbuf.buffer_count = 1; > > /* Now close the original having used every clone */ > Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> Regards, Tvrtko
diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_close.c b/tests/i915/gem_close.c index 4fdc1ad79..a9bf2d2d4 100644 --- a/tests/i915/gem_close.c +++ b/tests/i915/gem_close.c @@ -24,21 +24,57 @@ #include "i915/gem.h" #include "igt.h" -static bool has_duplicate(int err) +static int batch_create(int fd) +{ + const uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END; + uint32_t handle; + + handle = gem_create(fd, 4096); + gem_write(fd, handle, 0, &bbe, sizeof(bbe)); + + return handle; +} + +static int allows_duplicate(int fd) +{ + struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj[2] = { + { .handle = batch_create(fd), }, + }; + struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf = { + .buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(obj), + .buffer_count = 1, + }; + int err; + + gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf); + + obj[1] = obj[0]; + execbuf.buffer_count = 2; + + err = __gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf); + gem_close(fd, obj[0].handle); + + return err; +} + +static bool is_duplicate(int err) { return err == -EINVAL || err == -EALREADY; } static void test_many_handles(int fd) { - uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END; struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf; struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj[2]; uint32_t clones[128]; /* XXX try with 1024 */ uint32_t original; + int expected; + + expected = allows_duplicate(fd); + if (expected) + igt_assert(is_duplicate(expected)); - original = gem_create(fd, 4096); - gem_write(fd, original, 0, &bbe, sizeof(bbe)); + original = batch_create(fd); memset(&execbuf, 0, sizeof(execbuf)); execbuf.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(obj); @@ -54,7 +90,8 @@ static void test_many_handles(int fd) gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf); } - /* We do not allow the sam object to be referenced multiple times + /* + * We do not allow the same object to be referenced multiple times * within an execbuf; hence why this practice of cloning a handle * is only found within test cases. */ @@ -62,11 +99,11 @@ static void test_many_handles(int fd) obj[0].handle = original; for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(clones); i++) { obj[1].handle = clones[i]; - igt_assert(has_duplicate(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf))); + igt_assert_eq(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf), expected); } /* Any other clone pair should also be detected */ obj[1].handle = clones[0]; /* (last, first) */ - igt_assert(has_duplicate(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf))); + igt_assert_eq(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf), expected); execbuf.buffer_count = 1; /* Now close the original having used every clone */
With an upcoming change, we can relax the rule about handles not being duplicated in the execocbj[]. Duplicate handles must not otherwise conflict in their placements (e.g. two EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED at different offsets), but otherwise if they are able to be resolved to the same GPU address, then the operation is harmless and decreed legal. Since this is a relaxation in the negative ABI, update the test case to allow the permissible duplicate handles. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> --- tests/i915/gem_close.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)