(gem_exec_schedule:1270) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function test_pi_ringfull, file gem_exec_schedule.c:898: (gem_exec_schedule:1270) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: __execbuf(fd, &execbuf) == -4 (gem_exec_schedule:1270) CRITICAL: Last errno: 4, Interrupted system call (gem_exec_schedule:1270) CRITICAL: error: 0 != -4 Subtest pi-ringfull-bsd2 failed. https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_3856/shard-kbl2/igt@gem_exec_schedule@pi-ringfull-bsd2.html
commit e3a0ed9855a2e9d77cfd0c770ceadac5b7030e4e (HEAD, upstream/master) Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Date: Mon Mar 5 10:51:06 2018 +0000 Bump measure_ring_size() timer interval It appears that waiting for a 100us period whereby we are unable to submit another batch and proclaim the ring full, may have the false positive where the scheduler intervenes and we are signalled twice before having slept on ring space. Increasing the interval reduces the likelihood of the scheduler stealing the cpu from us, but does not eliminate it. Fortuitously it appears to be a rare false positive. For the library routine, we can fork a RT process but that seems a bit overkill! References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105343 Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Cc: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@intel.com> Assuming fixed.
Closing, please re-open if still occurs.
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.