Bug 79573

Can you please update the error message after applying

commit a384e55b49dce17eff1945536f957546bc7902cf
Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Date:   Tue Jun 3 07:31:49 2014 +0100

    igt/gem_evict_everything: Move assertion
    
    If we move the assertion from out of the callback, we can get a much
    more useful error message.
    
    References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79573
    Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

Created attachment 100375 [details]
dmesg with patch

(In reply to comment #1)
> Can you please update the error message after applying
> 
> commit a384e55b49dce17eff1945536f957546bc7902cf
> Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Date:   Tue Jun 3 07:31:49 2014 +0100
> 
>     igt/gem_evict_everything: Move assertion
>     
>     If we move the assertion from out of the callback, we can get a much
>     more useful error message.
>     
>     References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79573
>     Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

Output:
./gem_evict_everything --run-subtest minor-interruptible
IGT-Version: 1.6-g3c70e6a (x86_64) (Linux: 3.15.0-rc7_drm-intel-nightly_455a8f_20140603+ x86_64)
Test assertion failure function minor_evictions, file eviction_common.c:97:
Last errno: 0, Success
Failed assertion: ret == ENOSPC
Subtest minor-interruptible: FAIL

I've refined the load calculation, fearing that we have an integer overflow. Can you please recheck with IGT_LOG_LEVEL=debug, i.e.

IGT_LOG_LEVEL=debug ./gem_evict_everything --run-subtest minor-interruptible


commit a1a8aa16fb4e27a267f4ac12883419114a020dd7
Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Date:   Thu Jun 5 13:19:39 2014 +0100

    igt/gem_evict_everything: Compute number of surfaces to saturate the aperture
    
    The goal is to only fill the aperture, not all of memory, so fine-tune
    the computed number of surfaces, hopefully avoiding an integer overflow
    in the process.
    
    References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79573
    Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

Created attachment 100501 [details]
dmesg

(In reply to comment #3)
> I've refined the load calculation, fearing that we have an integer overflow.
> Can you please recheck with IGT_LOG_LEVEL=debug, i.e.
> 
> IGT_LOG_LEVEL=debug ./gem_evict_everything --run-subtest minor-interruptible
> 
> 
> commit a1a8aa16fb4e27a267f4ac12883419114a020dd7
> Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Date:   Thu Jun 5 13:19:39 2014 +0100
> 
>     igt/gem_evict_everything: Compute number of surfaces to saturate the
> aperture
>     
>     The goal is to only fill the aperture, not all of memory, so fine-tune
>     the computed number of surfaces, hopefully avoiding an integer overflow
>     in the process.
>     
>     References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79573
>     Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

Test on latest igt: 9a70e29f8380c2fc6f9b43757c68e24bf2619061, the result was skip.
Output:
 IGT_LOG_LEVEL=debug ./gem_evict_everything --run-subtest minor-interruptible
IGT-Version: 1.6-g9a70e29 (x86_64) (Linux: 3.15.0-rc7_drm-intel-nightly_0a37b5_20140604+ x86_64)
Checking 4097 surfaces of size 1048576 bytes (total 4298117120) against RAM
Estimated that we need 4298117120 bytes for the test, but only have 3904897024 bytes available (RAM)
Test requirement not met in function minor_evictions, file eviction_common.c:79:
Last errno: 0, Success
Test requirement: (!(intel_check_memory(total_surfaces, surface_size, 0x1)))
Subtest minor-interruptible: SKIP

Machine is not capable of running the test (not enough RAM).

looks like a valid bug, and the patch mentioned in comment#3 fixed the problem (FAIL->SKIP).

No. It was *NOT* fixed. The commit just demonstrated that the machine as configured was not capable of running the test -- even though that was the machine's raison d'etre.

For machines not capable of running the test (not enough RAM), we should expect the test to return SKIP, right? But it was wrong to return FAIL -- that's the bug reported here. And it's FIXED.

No. The test tried to do something that was impossible, the kernel behaved appropriately. The machine is incorrectly configured to run the test.

(In reply to comment #9)
> No. The test tried to do something that was impossible, the kernel behaved
> appropriately. The machine is incorrectly configured to run the test.

Do you mean the test or the machine is invalid? (I thought you fixed the test)

Could you elaborate what's wrong for the machine configuration?

without good explanation for why this machines is considered incorrectly configured, I'm keeping my opinion this is a valid bug, and already fixed in igt.

Moving old bug from Verified to Closed.