Bug 108682 - [CI][SHARDS] igt@kms_color@pipe-[abc]-ctm-0-(5|25|75) - fail - Failed assertion: success
Summary: [CI][SHARDS] igt@kms_color@pipe-[abc]-ctm-0-(5|25|75) - fail - Failed asserti...
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: DRI
Classification: Unclassified
Component: DRM/Intel (show other bugs)
Version: XOrg git
Hardware: Other All
: high normal
Assignee: Intel GFX Bugs mailing list
QA Contact: Intel GFX Bugs mailing list
URL:
Whiteboard: ReadyForDev
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2018-11-06 15:35 UTC by Martin Peres
Modified: 2019-08-08 11:57 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
i915 platform: GLK, 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 2018-11-06 15:35:30 UTC
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_5091/shard-skl3/igt@kms_color@pipe-b-ctm-0-5.html

Starting subtest: pipe-B-ctm-0-5
(kms_color:1131) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function run_tests_for_pipe, file ../tests/kms_color.c:961:
(kms_color:1131) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: success
Subtest pipe-B-ctm-0-5 failed.
Comment 1 Martin Peres 2018-11-08 10:09:14 UTC
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_5102/shard-skl4/igt@kms_color@pipe-c-ctm-0-75.html

Starting subtest: pipe-C-ctm-0-75
(kms_color:1662) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function run_tests_for_pipe, file ../tests/kms_color.c:982:
(kms_color:1662) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: success
Subtest pipe-C-ctm-0-75 failed.
Comment 2 CI Bug Log 2019-04-15 07:05:36 UTC
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated:

{- SKL: igt@kms_color@pipe-[abc]-ctm-0-(5|25|75) - fail - Failed assertion: success -}
{+ SKL GLK: igt@kms_color@pipe-[abc]-ctm-0-(5|25|75) - fail - Failed assertion: success +}

New failures caught by the filter:

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_252/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-c-ctm-0-25.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_252/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-a-ctm-0-5.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_252/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-b-ctm-0-5.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_252/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-c-ctm-0-75.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_252/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-a-ctm-0-25.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_252/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-b-ctm-0-75.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_252/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-a-ctm-0-75.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_252/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-b-ctm-0-25.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_253/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-a-ctm-0-75.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_253/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-c-ctm-0-5.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_253/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-c-ctm-0-75.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_253/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-b-ctm-0-75.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_254/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-c-ctm-0-5.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_254/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-b-ctm-0-25.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_254/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-c-ctm-0-75.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_254/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-b-ctm-0-75.html

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_254/fi-glk-dsi/igt@kms_color@pipe-c-ctm-0-25.html
Comment 3 Lakshmi 2019-04-15 07:06:25 UTC
Also seen on GLK.
Comment 4 Uma Shankar 2019-08-08 06:37:49 UTC
Checked the latest CI results and this issue doesn't seem to occur. Can someone in CI team confirm this.
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/?

Also the CI links given here in this bugzilla are not working. Please update the same.
Comment 5 Uma Shankar 2019-08-08 11:57:29 UTC
Got the details and logs from http://gfx-ci.fi.intel.com/cibuglog-ng/.

This looks sporadic issue caused due to either crc captured at wrong time (missing vblanks) or there is some underrun happened causing crc to go off.
In a general scenario from this test perspective, I feel we are ok and this test
works well. Will investigate a bit more to get to the root cause of this problem.


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.