Bug 111873

Summary: [CI][SHARDS] igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-98-vcs1- fail - Failed assertion: (double)(100.0 * busy_r) <= ((double)(100.0 * expected) + (2)) && (double)(100.0 * busy_r) >= ((double)(100.0 * expected) - (2))
Product: DRI Reporter: Lakshmi <lakshminarayana.vudum>
Component: DRM/IntelAssignee: Intel GFX Bugs mailing list <intel-gfx-bugs>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED QA Contact: Intel GFX Bugs mailing list <intel-gfx-bugs>
Severity: not set    
Priority: not set CC: intel-gfx-bugs
Version: DRI git   
Hardware: Other   
OS: All   
Whiteboard:
i915 platform: TGL i915 features: Perf/PMU

Description Lakshmi 2019-10-01 10:01:10 UTC
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6979/shard-tglb6/igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-98-vcs1.html
Starting subtest: busy-accuracy-98-vcs1
(perf_pmu:1592) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function accuracy, file ../tests/perf_pmu.c:1762:
(perf_pmu:1592) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: (double)(100.0 * busy_r) <= ((double)(100.0 * expected) + (2)) && (double)(100.0 * busy_r) >= ((double)(100.0 * expected) - (2))
(perf_pmu:1592) CRITICAL: 98.060145 not within +2.000000/-2.000000 of 95.940253! ('100.0 * busy_r' vs '100.0 * expected')
Subtest busy-accuracy-98-vcs1 failed.
Comment 1 CI Bug Log 2019-10-01 10:01:44 UTC
The CI Bug Log issue associated to this bug has been updated.

### New filters associated

* TGL: igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-* - fail - Failed assertion: (double)(100.0 * busy_r) &lt;= ((double)(100.0 * expected) + (2)) &amp;&amp; (double)(100.0 * busy_r) &gt;= ((double)(100.0 * expected) - (2))
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6979/shard-tglb2/igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-2-vcs1.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6979/shard-tglb6/igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-98-vcs1.html
Comment 2 CI Bug Log 2019-10-02 13:02:46 UTC
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated:

{- TGL: igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-* - fail - Failed assertion: (double)(100.0 * busy_r) &lt;= ((double)(100.0 * expected) + (2)) &amp;&amp; (double)(100.0 * busy_r) &gt;= ((double)(100.0 * expected) - (2)) -}
{+ TGL: igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-* - fail - Failed assertion: (double)(100.0 * busy_r) &lt;= ((double)(100.0 * expected) + (2)) &amp;&amp; (double)(100.0 * busy_r) &gt;= ((double)(100.0 * expected) - (2)) +}

New failures caught by the filter:

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6980/shard-tglb3/igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-2-vcs0.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6980/shard-tglb6/igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-50-vecs0.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6981/shard-tglb1/igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-50-vcs1.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6982/shard-tglb2/igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-50-vecs0.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6982/shard-tglb4/igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-2-bcs0.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6982/shard-tglb5/igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-50-vcs0.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6982/shard-tglb6/igt@perf_pmu@busy-accuracy-98-bcs0.html
Comment 3 Chris Wilson 2019-10-02 13:06:24 UTC
Nothing to see here, just the delay from waiting for HW ack, please move along.
Comment 4 Martin Peres 2019-10-16 10:29:21 UTC
(In reply to Chris Wilson from comment #3)
> Nothing to see here, just the delay from waiting for HW ack, please move
> along.

Funny that it was seen 3 runs in a row, and then nothing for 50+ runs! Did you change anything?
Comment 5 CI Bug Log 2019-10-16 10:29:36 UTC
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.

Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.