Bug 108134 - [CI][SHARDS] igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-{x,y,yf}-tiled - fail - Failed assertion: !mismatch
Summary: [CI][SHARDS] igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-{x,y,yf}-tiled - fail - Failed asser...
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: DRI
Classification: Unclassified
Component: DRM/Intel (show other bugs)
Version: XOrg git
Hardware: Other All
: medium normal
Assignee: Mika Kahola
QA Contact: Intel GFX Bugs mailing list
URL:
Whiteboard: ReadyForDev
Keywords:
: 107931 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2018-10-02 15:50 UTC by Martin Peres
Modified: 2019-06-07 12:03 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
i915 platform: BDW, BYT, CFL, GLK, ICL, KBL, SKL
i915 features: display/Other


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Martin Peres 2018-10-02 15:50:53 UTC
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_119/fi-bdw-samus/igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-x-tiled.html

Starting subtest: flip-to-X-tiled
(kms_flip_tiling:1134) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function igt_assert_crc_equal, file ../lib/igt_debugfs.c:392:
(kms_flip_tiling:1134) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Failed assertion: !mismatch
Comment 1 Martin Peres 2018-10-16 12:47:16 UTC
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_4981/shard-skl3/igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-x-tiled.html

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_4677/shard-skl3/igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-x-tiled.html

Starting subtest: flip-to-X-tiled
(kms_flip_tiling:975) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function igt_assert_crc_equal, file ../lib/igt_debugfs.c:392:
(kms_flip_tiling:975) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Failed assertion: !mismatch
Subtest flip-to-X-tiled failed.
Comment 2 Martin Peres 2018-10-26 15:20:52 UTC
KBL results are here
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_133/fi-kbl-soraka/igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-x-tiled.html

Starting subtest: flip-to-X-tiled
(kms_flip_tiling:1192) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function igt_assert_crc_equal, file ../lib/igt_debugfs.c:392:
(kms_flip_tiling:1192) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Failed assertion: !mismatch
Subtest flip-to-X-tiled failed.
Comment 3 Martin Peres 2018-10-29 11:34:44 UTC
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_134/fi-icl-u/igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-x-tiled.html

Starting subtest: flip-to-X-tiled
(kms_flip_tiling:2755) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function igt_assert_crc_equal, file ../lib/igt_debugfs.c:419:
(kms_flip_tiling:2755) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Failed assertion: !mismatch
Subtest flip-to-X-tiled failed.
Comment 4 Martin Peres 2018-11-15 14:08:19 UTC
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_142/fi-byt-clapper/igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-x-tiled.html

Starting subtest: flip-to-X-tiled
(kms_flip_tiling:1323) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function igt_assert_crc_equal, file ../lib/igt_debugfs.c:419:
(kms_flip_tiling:1323) igt_debugfs-CRITICAL: Failed assertion: !mismatch
Subtest flip-to-X-tiled failed.
Comment 5 Mika Kahola 2018-11-29 11:11:59 UTC
This seems similar as for example the following bugs with failure crc mismatch

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103166
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103191

Maybe we could mark these as duplicates even though bug #103166 is tagged to CFL?
Comment 6 Mika Kahola 2018-11-30 11:20:55 UTC
Assigning this bug to myself
Comment 7 Daniel Vetter 2019-04-02 12:55:49 UTC
Note that the history of this tests was because the old command submission page flip could change tiling (but not much else). With atomic this is all done by the atomic pageflip code, so might indicate some larger issue with atomic flips.
Comment 8 Arek Hiler 2019-04-02 12:56:38 UTC
Seems like we have a similar filing for Y and Yf tilings:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107931

Same, very low, reproduction rate and the issue seems to be as elusive. We should probably combine those.
Comment 9 Martin Peres 2019-04-02 12:58:30 UTC
(In reply to Daniel Vetter from comment #7)
> Note that the history of this tests was because the old command submission
> page flip could change tiling (but not much else). With atomic this is all
> done by the atomic pageflip code, so might indicate some larger issue with
> atomic flips.

The reproduction rate does not look uniform, which could indicate that the ordering of the test is somewhat important, meaning that one test would leak some state onto the other one.

I suggest using cibuglog's Known Failure view with the following "issue_id=775 AND machine_tag = 'ICL'" query in order to start investigating this issue, looking at which tests were executed in the shard, but bear in mind that shards machines do not always reboot between shards, inside the same run (so also check the tests executed in the previous shard ids). Enjoy!

As for the customer impact, as per Daniel's comment, this might lead to flickering or garbled display, which would make the computer unusable depending on the tiling format of the framebuffer (expected to be stable between driver updates).
Comment 10 Arek Hiler 2019-04-02 12:58:57 UTC
*** Bug 107931 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 11 CI Bug Log 2019-04-02 13:00:01 UTC
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated:

{- BYT BDW SKL KBL ICL: igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-x-tiled - fail - Failed assertion: !mismatch -}
{+ BYT BDW SKL KBL ICL: igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-(x|y|yf)-tiled - fail - Failed assertion: !mismatch +}

 No new failures caught with the new filter
Comment 12 CI Bug Log 2019-04-02 13:01:50 UTC
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated:

{- BYT BDW SKL KBL ICL: igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-(x|y|yf)-tiled - fail - Failed assertion: !mismatch -}
{+ BYT BDW SKL KBL WHL ICL: igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-(x|y|yf)-tiled - fail - Failed assertion: !mismatch +}

 No new failures caught with the new filter
Comment 13 CI Bug Log 2019-04-16 09:39:29 UTC
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated:

{- BYT BDW SKL KBL WHL ICL: igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-(x|y|yf)-tiled - fail - Failed assertion: !mismatch -}
{+ BYT BDW SKL KBL GLK WHL ICL: igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-(x|y|yf)-tiled - fail - Failed assertion: !mismatch +}

New failures caught by the filter:

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_252/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-yf-tiled.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_253/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-x-tiled.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_254/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-x-tiled.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_255/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-yf-tiled.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_255/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-x-tiled.html
Comment 14 Mika Kahola 2019-04-23 11:39:19 UTC
The test is failing when trying to flip from tiling none to x, y, or yf tiling.

The worst case scenario for user perspective is corrupted screen when tiling fails to produce correct image.

#assessment
Comment 15 Jani Saarinen 2019-05-08 19:16:33 UTC
This issue now seen last time 3 weeks ago. So I guess we could lower priority.
Comment 16 Jani Saarinen 2019-05-21 09:57:47 UTC
Not seen now ~2 weeks, BIOS was updated on shards, I guess lowering priority this would be right measure
Comment 17 Lakshmi 2019-05-23 05:22:10 UTC
(In reply to Jani Saarinen from comment #16)
> Not seen now ~2 weeks, BIOS was updated on shards, I guess lowering priority
> this would be right measure

This occurred one day ago 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6113/shard-iclb8/igt@kms_flip_tiling@flip-to-x-tiled.html
Comment 18 Mika Kahola 2019-05-23 06:49:18 UTC
With the best known BIOS version?

Currently, we have BIOS ICLSFWR1.R00.3175.A00.1904261428 04/26/2019
Comment 19 Jani Saarinen 2019-05-23 10:33:31 UTC
latest we have is: R00.3183. That is partly updated on shards too.
Comment 20 Mika Kahola 2019-06-03 10:39:27 UTC
This hasn't been seen in last 66 runs. Can we close this bug?
Comment 21 Jani Saarinen 2019-06-07 12:03:25 UTC
Dropping priority due to low reproducible rate .


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.