Bug 112044

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

### New filters associated

* TGL:  igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic - fail - no logs
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_3573/fi-cml-u/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_3573/fi-cml-u2/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_3573/fi-tgl-u/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_3573/fi-tgl-u2/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_5226/shard-tglb1/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_3574/fi-cml-u/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_3574/fi-tgl-u/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_3574/fi-tgl-u2/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_3575/fi-cml-u/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_3575/fi-cml-u2/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_3575/fi-tgl-u/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_3575/fi-tgl-u2/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html

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

{- TGL:  igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic - fail - no logs -}
{+ TGL:  igt@gem_tiled_blits@(basic|normal) - fail - no logs +}

New failures caught by the filter:

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_5226/shard-tglb1/igt@gem_tiled_blits@normal.html

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_5226/shard-tglb1/igt@gem_tiled_blits@normal.html
Err	
Stack trace: 
 #0 [fatal_sig_handler+0xd6]
 #1 [killpg+0x40]
 #2 [drm_intel_bufmgr_gem_enable_reuse+0x0]
 #3 [__real_main201+0x1e5]
 #4 [main+0x27]
 #5 [__libc_start_main+0xe7]
 #6 [_start+0x2a]
Dmesg	
<6> [345.227180] Console: switching to colour dummy device 80x25
<6> [345.227229] [IGT] gem_tiled_blits: executing
<5> [345.238534] Setting dangerous option reset - tainting kernel
<6> [345.243069] Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 240x67

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_5226/shard-tglb1/igt@gem_exec_bad_domains@cpu-domain.html
Stack trace: 
 #0 [fatal_sig_handler+0xd6]
 #1 [killpg+0x40]
 #2 [drm_intel_bufmgr_gem_enable_reuse+0x0]
 #3 [__real_main148+0x787]
 #4 [main+0x27]
 #5 [__libc_start_main+0xe7]
 #6 [_start+0x2a]

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

{- TGL:  igt@gem_tiled_blits@(basic|normal) - fail - no logs -}
{+ TGL:  igt@gem_tiled_blits@(basic|normal) - fail - no logs +}

New failures caught by the filter:

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_5226/shard-tglb1/igt@gem_exec_bad_domains@cpu-domain.html

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

{- TGL:  igt@gem_tiled_blits@(basic|normal) - fail - no logs -}
{+ TGL:  igt@gem_tiled_blits@(basic|normal)|igt@gem_exec_bad_domains@cpu-domain - fail - no logs +}


  No new failures caught with the new filter

Seen once in 3 weeks, waiting for more occurrences.

-> when I try to run gem_exec_bad_domains or gem_tiled_blits on TGL silicon, I get the below error … 

(gem_exec_bad_domains:2220) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function igt_debugfs_path, file ../lib/igt_debugfs.c:165:

(gem_tiled_blits:2223) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function igt_debugfs_path, file ../lib/igt_debugfs.c:165:

 

-> When I run the same test on TGL Simics preSi I see a different error, for instance

Starting subtest: basic
 (gem_tiled_blits:241) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function create_bo, file ../tests/i915/gem_tiled_blits.c:73:
 (gem_tiled_blits:241) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: (drm_intel_bo_set_tiling(bo, &tiling, width * 4)) == 0

I am missing something with the IGT, or the way the IGT tools are set up on my target machine. How can I ensure the dependencies are met for running IGT ?

I would like to reproduce the i915 crash and then debug this further but these test assertions are preventing me to continue with the debug. Please can someone provide help.

Actually with upstream on TGL Silicon I see this issue quite often. 

intel@intel:~/igt/igt-gpu-tools/build/tests$ sudo ./gem_tiled_blits
IGT-Version: 1.24-geafaa79d (x86_64) (Linux: 5.4.0-pn+ x86_64)
Received signal SIGSEGV.
Stack trace:
 #0 [fatal_sig_handler+0xd6]
 #1 [killpg+0x40]
 #2 [drm_intel_bufmgr_gem_enable_reuse+0x0]
 #3 [__real_main201+0x1e5]
 #4 [main+0x27]
 #5 [__libc_start_main+0xe7]
 #6 [_start+0x2a]
Segmentation fault

Created attachment 146047 [details]
attachment-32497-0.html

Your libdrm is too old.


On 11/29/19 1:27 PM, bugzilla-daemon@freedesktop.org wrote:
>
> *Comment # 9 <https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112044#c9> 
> on bug 112044 <https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112044> 
> from vinod <mailto:vinod.tipparaju@intel.com> *
> Actually with upstream on TGL Silicon I see this issue quite often.
>
> intel@intel:~/igt/igt-gpu-tools/build/tests$ sudo ./gem_tiled_blits
> IGT-Version: 1.24-geafaa79d (x86_64) (Linux: 5.4.0-pn+ x86_64)
> Received signal SIGSEGV.
> Stack trace:
>   #0 [fatal_sig_handler+0xd6]
>   #1 [killpg+0x40]
>   #2 [drm_intel_bufmgr_gem_enable_reuse+0x0]
>   #3 [__real_main201+0x1e5]
>   #4 [main+0x27]
>   #5 [__libc_start_main+0xe7]
>   #6 [_start+0x2a]
> Segmentation fault
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You are receiving this mail because:
>
>   * You are on the CC list for the bug.
>

'Twas just a broken libdrm.

Couple of questions:

- Did the CI also had broken libdrm ? I am seeing the same issue which was reported by the CI so want to make sure if this is environment/ set up issue only.
- Also, do we have new CI results which doesn't reproduce the SEGSEGV error ?

(In reply to vinod from comment #12)
> Couple of questions:
> 
> - Did the CI also had broken libdrm ? I am seeing the same issue which was
> reported by the CI so want to make sure if this is environment/ set up issue
> only.

Yes.

> - Also, do we have new CI results which doesn't reproduce the SEGSEGV error ?

Yes.

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/igt@gem_tiled_blits@basic.html
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/igt@gem_tiled_blits@normal.html
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/igt@gem_exec_bad_domains@cpu-domain.html