Starting with either CI_DRM_2668 or CI_DRM_2668, the execution time of the following tests on fi-snb-2520m increased drastically: - igt@gem_exec_flush@basic-batch-kernel-default-wb: 15.35-> 129.21s - igt@gem_exec_flush@basic-batch-kernel-default-uc: 16.71 -> 32.21s Full logs: - before: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/CI/CI_DRM_2667/fi-snb-2520m/ - after: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/CI/CI_DRM_2669/fi-snb-2520m/
With the latest run, the execution times went down significantly: - igt@gem_exec_flush@basic-batch-kernel-default-wb: 21.60s - igt@gem_exec_flush@basic-batch-kernel-default-uc: 19.84s
intel_powerclamp.
(In reply to Chris Wilson from comment #2) > intel_powerclamp. Well spotted, but this does not explain the results of run CI_DRM_2670: 21.60 igt@gem_exec_flush@basic-batch-kernel-default-wb 19.84 igt@gem_exec_flush@basic-batch-kernel-default-uc Yet, idle injection was active during the execution of these tests: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/CI/CI_DRM_2670/fi-snb-2520m/dmesg-during.log But anyway, I guess we need to check if this machine is not overheating or otherwise consuming too much power (as reported by RAPL).
+ Tomi.
(In reply to Martin Peres from comment #4) > + Tomi. Tomi checked the temperature, and if the machine was dusty. It is not, and the temperature appears to be fine. Any other idea?
Actually, the increased execution time started with CI_DRM_2665 and ended with CI_DRM_2673. Outside of this commit range, the execution time is fine. I would thus say that whatever was the problem, it was a core problem which has been fixed already. I will thus close the bug as fixed.
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.