| Message ID | 1437045549-15455-1-git-send-email-michal.winiarski@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:19:09PM +0200, Micha? Winiarski wrote: > When reading the timestamp register with single 64b read, we are observing > invalid values on x86_64: > > [f = valid counter value | X = garbage] > > i386: 0x0000000fffffffff > x86_64: 0xffffffffXXXXXXXX > > Test checks if the counter is moving and increasing. > Add a check to see if we can use (reg | 1) flag to get a proper 36b timestamp, > shifting the value on x86_64 if we can't. > > v2: More iterations of monotonic test, comments, minor fixups (Chris) > v3: Skip tests if reg_read is not supported > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Signed-off-by: Micha? Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> Lgtm, Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> -Chris
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:24:19PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:19:09PM +0200, Micha? Winiarski wrote: > > When reading the timestamp register with single 64b read, we are observing > > invalid values on x86_64: > > > > [f = valid counter value | X = garbage] > > > > i386: 0x0000000fffffffff > > x86_64: 0xffffffffXXXXXXXX > > > > Test checks if the counter is moving and increasing. > > Add a check to see if we can use (reg | 1) flag to get a proper 36b timestamp, > > shifting the value on x86_64 if we can't. > > > > v2: More iterations of monotonic test, comments, minor fixups (Chris) > > v3: Skip tests if reg_read is not supported > > > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Signed-off-by: Micha? Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> > > Lgtm, > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Pushed! thanks for the patch and review.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:24:19PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:19:09PM +0200, Micha? Winiarski wrote: >> > When reading the timestamp register with single 64b read, we are observing >> > invalid values on x86_64: >> > >> > [f = valid counter value | X = garbage] >> > >> > i386: 0x0000000fffffffff >> > x86_64: 0xffffffffXXXXXXXX >> > >> > Test checks if the counter is moving and increasing. >> > Add a check to see if we can use (reg | 1) flag to get a proper 36b timestamp, >> > shifting the value on x86_64 if we can't. >> > >> > v2: More iterations of monotonic test, comments, minor fixups (Chris) >> > v3: Skip tests if reg_read is not supported >> > >> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> > Signed-off-by: Micha? Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> >> >> Lgtm, >> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Pushed! thanks for the patch and review. This is a testcase for new abi and the kernel side hasn't landed yet. Intentional breach of procedures? -Daniel
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 08:48:05AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Damien Lespiau > <damien.lespiau@intel.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:24:19PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:19:09PM +0200, Micha? Winiarski wrote: > >> > When reading the timestamp register with single 64b read, we are observing > >> > invalid values on x86_64: > >> > > >> > [f = valid counter value | X = garbage] > >> > > >> > i386: 0x0000000fffffffff > >> > x86_64: 0xffffffffXXXXXXXX > >> > > >> > Test checks if the counter is moving and increasing. > >> > Add a check to see if we can use (reg | 1) flag to get a proper 36b timestamp, > >> > shifting the value on x86_64 if we can't. > >> > > >> > v2: More iterations of monotonic test, comments, minor fixups (Chris) > >> > v3: Skip tests if reg_read is not supported > >> > > >> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > >> > Signed-off-by: Micha? Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> > >> > >> Lgtm, > >> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > Pushed! thanks for the patch and review. > > This is a testcase for new abi and the kernel side hasn't landed yet. > Intentional breach of procedures? Nop, was just overlooked.
diff --git a/tests/gem_reg_read.c b/tests/gem_reg_read.c index d3e68d9..28ecdf5 100644 --- a/tests/gem_reg_read.c +++ b/tests/gem_reg_read.c @@ -28,10 +28,15 @@ #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> #include <errno.h> +#include <sys/utsname.h> +#include <time.h> #include "ioctl_wrappers.h" #include "drmtest.h" +static bool is_x86_64; +static bool has_proper_timestamp; + struct local_drm_i915_reg_read { __u64 offset; __u64 val; /* Return value */ @@ -39,39 +44,133 @@ struct local_drm_i915_reg_read { #define REG_READ_IOCTL DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + 0x31, struct local_drm_i915_reg_read) -static uint64_t timer_query(int fd) +#define RENDER_RING_TIMESTAMP 0x2358 + +static int read_register(int fd, uint64_t offset, uint64_t * val) { + int ret = 0; struct local_drm_i915_reg_read reg_read; + reg_read.offset = offset; + + if (drmIoctl(fd, REG_READ_IOCTL, ®_read)) + ret = -errno; - reg_read.offset = 0x2358; - igt_fail_on_f(drmIoctl(fd, REG_READ_IOCTL, ®_read), - "positive test case failed: "); + *val = reg_read.val; - return reg_read.val; + return ret; } -igt_simple_main +static bool check_kernel_x86_64(void) { - struct local_drm_i915_reg_read reg_read; - int fd, ret; + int ret; + struct utsname uts; + + ret = uname(&uts); + igt_assert(ret == 0); + + if (!strcmp(uts.machine, "x86_64")) + return true; + + return false; +} + +static bool check_timestamp(int fd) +{ + int ret; + uint64_t val; + + ret = read_register(fd, RENDER_RING_TIMESTAMP | 1, &val); + + return ret == 0; +} + +static int timer_query(int fd, uint64_t * val) +{ + uint64_t offset; + int ret; + + offset = RENDER_RING_TIMESTAMP; + if (has_proper_timestamp) + offset |= 1; + + ret = read_register(fd, offset, val); + +/* + * When reading the timestamp register with single 64b read, we are observing + * invalid values on x86_64: + * + * [f = valid counter value | X = garbage] + * + * i386: 0x0000000fffffffff + * x86_64: 0xffffffffXXXXXXXX + * + * In the absence of a corrected register read ioctl, attempt + * to fix up the return value to be vaguely useful. + */ - fd = drm_open_any(); + if (is_x86_64 && !has_proper_timestamp) + *val >>= 32; - reg_read.offset = 0x2358; - ret = drmIoctl(fd, REG_READ_IOCTL, ®_read); - igt_assert(ret == 0 || errno == EINVAL); - igt_require(ret == 0); + return ret; +} + +static void test_timestamp_moving(int fd) +{ + uint64_t first_val, second_val; - reg_read.val = timer_query(fd); + igt_fail_on(timer_query(fd, &first_val) != 0); sleep(1); - /* Check that timer is moving and isn't busted. */ - igt_assert(timer_query(fd) != reg_read.val); + igt_fail_on(timer_query(fd, &second_val) != 0); + igt_assert(second_val != first_val); +} + +static void test_timestamp_monotonic(int fd) +{ + uint64_t first_val, second_val; + time_t start; + bool retry = true; + + igt_fail_on(timer_query(fd, &first_val) != 0); + time(&start); + do { +retry: + igt_fail_on(timer_query(fd, &second_val) != 0); + if (second_val < first_val && retry) { + /* We may hit timestamp overflow once */ + retry = false; + first_val = second_val; + goto retry; + } + igt_assert(second_val >= first_val); + } while(difftime(time(NULL), start) < 5); + +} + +igt_main +{ + uint64_t val = 0; + int fd = -1; + + igt_fixture { + fd = drm_open_any(); + is_x86_64 = check_kernel_x86_64(); + has_proper_timestamp = check_timestamp(fd); + } + + igt_subtest("bad-register") + igt_assert_eq(read_register(fd, 0x12345678, &val), -EINVAL); - /* bad reg */ - reg_read.offset = 0x12345678; - ret = drmIoctl(fd, REG_READ_IOCTL, ®_read); + igt_subtest("timestamp-moving") { + igt_skip_on(timer_query(fd, &val) != 0); + test_timestamp_moving(fd); + } - igt_assert(ret != 0 && errno == EINVAL); + igt_subtest("timestamp-monotonic") { + igt_skip_on(timer_query(fd, &val) != 0); + test_timestamp_monotonic(fd); + } - close(fd); + igt_fixture { + close(fd); + } }
When reading the timestamp register with single 64b read, we are observing invalid values on x86_64: [f = valid counter value | X = garbage] i386: 0x0000000fffffffff x86_64: 0xffffffffXXXXXXXX Test checks if the counter is moving and increasing. Add a check to see if we can use (reg | 1) flag to get a proper 36b timestamp, shifting the value on x86_64 if we can't. v2: More iterations of monotonic test, comments, minor fixups (Chris) v3: Skip tests if reg_read is not supported Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Signed-off-by: Micha? Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> --- tests/gem_reg_read.c | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)