Bug 108587

Also seen on the following run, which suggests a regression: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_135/fi-icl-u2/igt@perf@blocking.html

Last seen on 135. Lionel, how do you see this?

I think this regression was fixed?

(In reply to Jani Saarinen from comment #3)
> I think this regression was fixed?

Back again this week:

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_4862/fi-icl-u3/igt@perf@blocking.html

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_234/fi-icl-u2/igt@perf@blocking.html

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_235/fi-icl-u2/igt@perf@blocking.html

A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated:

{- ICL: igt@perf@blocking - fail - Failed assertion: kernel_ns <= (test_duration_ns / 100ull) -}
{+ ICL: igt@perf@blocking|polling - fail - Failed assertion: kernel_ns <= (test_duration_ns / 100ull) +}

New failures caught by the filter:

* https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_5729/shard-iclb4/igt@perf@polling.html

Bumping the priority to high, since it also happens on shards!

On shards runs (CI_DRM) on an average this issue used to happen once in 6 runs. Last seen 96 runs ago. Where as in drmtip runs, this issue used to occur once in 4 drmtip runs and last seen 14 drmtip runs ago (drmtip_250).

Can we drop the priority to Medium?

This used to happen every other IGT run (every 1.7 runs), now not seen for 32 runs. Closing!

The CI Bug Log issue associated to this bug has been archived.

New failures matching the above filters will not be associated to this bug anymore.