https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6085/pig-snb-2600/spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetchoffset@gs-sampler2drect.html Time 0.12 seconds Out 65x32x1 Probe at (0,30) Expected: -0.000000 0.967742 0.000000 0.000000 Observed: 0.098039 0.098039 0.098039 1.000000 Environment PIGLIT_SOURCE_DIR="/opt/igt/piglit" PIGLIT_PLATFORM="gbm" Command /opt/igt/piglit/bin/texelFetch offset 140 gs sampler2DRect -auto -fbo Full piglit results: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6085/pig-snb-2600/results0.json.bz2
The CI Bug Log issue associated to this bug has been updated. ### New filters associated * pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetchoffset@gs-sampler2drect - fail - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6085/pig-snb-2600/spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetchoffset@gs-sampler2drect.html
hi, I checked this test on 2 our SNB's: Intel Core i5-2400 Intel Core i5-2520M latest master. On both test passes. Also I don't see failures of this test on mesa master branch in intel CI https://mesa-ci.01.org/mesa_master/test/d015e970c6fe1359b4afecfa9759b0a3/history Do you have any additional information about this failure?
(In reply to Denis from comment #2) > hi, I checked this test on 2 our SNB's: > Intel Core i5-2400 > Intel Core i5-2520M > > > latest master. On both test passes. Also I don't see failures of this test > on mesa master branch in intel CI > https://mesa-ci.01.org/mesa_master/test/d015e970c6fe1359b4afecfa9759b0a3/ > history > > Do you have any additional information about this failure? Thanks for checking this out! The machine is a Dell XPS 8300: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/hardware.html#pig-snb-2600 to see all the raw information from it The version of mesa is: 18.2.2-0ubuntu1~18.04.2 Anything else you would like to know? Martin
could you please correct me if I am wrong. As I see from the web interface, >https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6085/pig-snb-2600/runtimes0.log CI_DRM_6085 - this is build number? I can see that in CI_DRM_6086 and at least Ci_DRM_6087 this test passes successfully: > 0.12 spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetchoffset@gs-sampler2drect pass Does this mean that issue was fixed or could be flaky? Also, could you please explain, why for these tests was used "mesa is: 18.2.2-0ubuntu1~18.04.2"?? I checked ubuntu 18.04 repository and found out that it already has 19.0.2 (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic/+source/mesa) Thank you in advance for further clarifications.
my configurations: Linux ubuntu-HP-ProBook-6360b 5.0.7-050007-generic #201904052141 SMP Fri Apr 5 21:43:20 UTC 2019 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Ubuntu 18.04 (kde) mesa 18.2.2 (compiled from git) Test result output: "spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetchoffset@gs-sampler2drect": { "__type__": "TestResult", "command": "/home/ubuntu/repository/piglit/bin/texelFetch offset 140 gs sampler2DRect -auto -fbo", "environment": "PIGLIT_SOURCE_DIR=\"/home/ubuntu/repository/piglit\" PIGLIT_PLATFORM=\"gbm\"", "err": "", "out": "65x32x1\n", "result": "pass", "returncode": 0, "subtests": { "__type__": "Subtests" }, "time": { "start": 1558104612.5021374, "end": 1558104612.6262546, "__type__": "TimeAttribute" },
(In reply to Denis from comment #4) > could you please correct me if I am wrong. > As I see from the web interface, > > >https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6085/pig-snb-2600/runtimes0.log > > CI_DRM_6085 - this is build number? CI_DRM is indeed the build ID for Linux, but it is also used as an ID for the type of run (post-merge testing of a kernel change, with the latest IGT that was previously tested). > > I can see that in CI_DRM_6086 and at least Ci_DRM_6087 this test passes > successfully: > > 0.12 spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetchoffset@gs-sampler2drect pass > Does this mean that issue was fixed or could be flaky? Fixed, for sure not: We do not update mesa nor piglit. Well, it could still be an issue introduced by the kernel and then fixed immediately, but I doubt it very much as developers usually don't look at mesa failures except during pre-merge testing. So yeah, it seems like it is a flaky test, with a very low reproduction rate... > > Also, could you please explain, why for these tests was used "mesa is: > 18.2.2-0ubuntu1~18.04.2"?? I checked ubuntu 18.04 repository and found out > that it already has 19.0.2 (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic/+source/mesa) I guess we have not updated yet these machines. I SSHed into it and it was indeed using this old version of mesa (would be nice for piglit to store the mesa version when using the gbm platform, it would save me time :D). > > Thank you in advance for further clarifications. Thanks you for checking it out! The kernel's CI is very bug-centric, so every failure needs to be documented in a bug, so as to provide a forum of discussion about it and try to understand the possible impact of it (which depends a lot on the reproduction rate). This is why you see from time to time bugs from me :)
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated: {- pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetchoffset@gs-sampler2drect - fail -} {+ pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch* / spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture* - fail +} New failures caught by the filter:
(In reply to CI Bug Log from comment #7) > A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated: > > {- pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetchoffset@gs-sampler2drect > - fail -} > {+ pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch* / > spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture* - fail +} > > New failures caught by the filter: We got 6 more failures related to this area (5 on the same run :o). I am wondering if this could be a kernel regression given that mesa did not change. Any opinion on this before I move this to the kernel?
This test is totally reliable for our snb systems on 4.19 kernel. If you have any trouble investigating it on the kernel side, let us know. Denis could probably install drm-tip and see if he can repro.
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated: {- pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch* / spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture* - fail -} {+ pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch* / spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture* - fail +} New failures caught by the filter:
>Denis could probably install drm-tip and see if he can repro. Absolutely correct. I will try to reproduce it locally and if I be lucky - will make a bisect
(In reply to Mark Janes from comment #9) > This test is totally reliable for our snb systems on 4.19 kernel. Thanks Mark for the information! > > If you have any trouble investigating it on the kernel side, let us know. > Denis could probably install drm-tip and see if he can repro. I am wondering whether this could be the machine showing sign of age or if this is a test issue. However, with the number of failures starting to pile up, all on the same type of tests, I think I will see if we can get a GEM developer to investigate what could be going on here! In any case, thanks for the fast feedback! Let's see if we can fix this regression before it hits users!
(In reply to Denis from comment #11) > >Denis could probably install drm-tip and see if he can repro. > Absolutely correct. I will try to reproduce it locally and if I be lucky - > will make a bisect You rock \o/!
So far, we got the following 12 failures (on 9 tests): spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetchoffset@gs-sampler2drect spec@glsl-1.30@execution@texelfetch fs sampler2darray 98x1x9-98x129x9 spec@glsl-1.30@execution@texelfetch fs sampler2darray 98x1x9-98x129x9 spec@glsl-1.30@execution@texelfetch fs sampler2darray 1x129x9-98x129x9 spec@glsl-1.30@execution@texelfetch fs sampler2darray 1x129x9-98x129x9 spec@glsl-1.30@execution@texelfetch fs sampler2d 1x281-501x281 spec@glsl-1.30@execution@texelfetch fs sampler2d 1x281-501x281 spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection textureprojgrad 1d spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture(bias) cube spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture(bias) 3d spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture(bias) 2darray spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture(bias) 1darray The first failure appeared on CI_DRM_6085[1], and the last one on CI_DRM_6133[2]. I hope this helps! [1] 48d8cf5cc0aadd21924d05ad3e86b08d8e0e1c50 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux [2] c22847d8bc09118895483b277cbe4bf4f82ac444 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated: {- pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch* / spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture* - fail -} {+ pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch* / spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture* - fail +} New failures caught by the filter: * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6156/pig-snb-2600/spec@arb_texture_multisample@texelfetch@2-gs-isampler2dmsarray.html
hey guys, I built kernel from 17,05 (drm-tip) and ran texelFetch cases (all) 1000 times. It is still running but in log I already see at least 1 failure. It can be even mentioned in this bug issue. Continue investigations :)
to be honest, I don't have any ideas. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/130t9Z5Y9gew1Gz1_36nJVxdIe2HLIoNSbzW9grh0URY/edit?usp=sharing In this table you may find results for my test runs. Short information: 1. Script ran test suite with all texelFetch cases 1000 times 2. Script was ran on 5 kernel versions - drm-tip (from 05.17), kernel 5.17, kernel 4.18 and kernel 4.9 3. For all kernels was used mesa version 19.1.0 (from git) 4. For 4.9 kernel also was checked mesa 17.3.6 I didn't see any combination with mesa+kernel where all tests (during all 1000 runs in a row) would be passed, so can't suppose that it may be regression. List of cases which were randomly failed (details about failures in the google doc table): spec@arb_texture_multisample@texelfetch@4-gs-sampler2dmsarray spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch@gs-texelfetch-sampler3d spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch@gs-texelfetch-sampler2drect spec@arb_texture_multisample@texelfetch@2-gs-isampler2dmsarray spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch@gs-texelfetch-isampler2drect spec@arb_texture_multisample@texelfetch@4-gs-usampler2dmsarray Checking these test cases now => @tex-miplevel-selection
>Checking these test cases now => @tex-miplevel-selection small update. Tests from this suite also fail in different runs. Tested on 17,3,6 mesa and 4.9 kernel, so it is not regression :(
https://mesa-ci.01.org/mesa_master_daily/builds/5070/results/588093684 looks like and intel-ci triggered the first test case failure. /tmp/build_root/m64/lib/piglit/bin/texelFetch gs isampler2DMSArray 4 -auto -fbo piglit: debug: Requested an OpenGL 3.2 Core Context, and received a matching 3.3 context 65x32x5 Probe at (63,27) Expected: 0.984375 0.870968 0.000000 0.000000 Observed: 0.098039 0.098039 0.098039 1.000000 piglit: error: Failed at level 0, slice 0 Probe at (21,27) Expected: 0.328125 0.870968 0.250000 0.000000 Observed: 0.901961 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 piglit: error: Failed at level 0, slice 1 Probe at (0,27) Expected: -0.000000 0.870968 0.500000 0.000000 Observed: 0.000000 0.937255 0.501961 0.000000 piglit: error: Failed at level 0, slice 2 Probe at (17,27) Expected: 0.265625 0.870968 0.750000 0.000000 Observed: 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 piglit: error: Failed at level 0, slice 3
(In reply to Denis from comment #20) > https://mesa-ci.01.org/mesa_master_daily/builds/5070/results/588093684 > looks like and intel-ci triggered the first test case failure. The system was snbgt1-01 (in case this is related to the SKU) Martin, do you have any idea what type of SNB is failing in the kernel CI?
Mark, does this help: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6356/pig-snb-2600/boot0.log <6>[ 0.370072] smpboot: CPU0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz (family: 0x6, model: 0x2a, stepping: 0x7) All SNB Piglit systems are are same. http://gfx-ci.fi.intel.com/hardware.html#pig-snb-2600
(In reply to Jani Saarinen from comment #22) > <6>[ 0.370072] smpboot: CPU0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz i7-2600 has HD Graphics 2000, which is SNBGT1. From the log, the pci id is 0x0102, which indicates GT1 as well. Our SNBGT1 systems are very slow, and don't run tests unless the CI is swamped with other work. It may be that they don't reproduce this as readily, since the CPU is so much faster on your SNBGT1 systems. We should target our systems with a long series of piglit runs to see if it shows up.
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated: {- pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch* / spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture* - fail -} {+ pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch* / spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture* - fail +} New failures caught by the filter: * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6458/pig-snb-2600/spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetchoffset@gs-texelfetch-sampler2d.html
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated: {- pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch* / spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture* - fail -} {+ pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch* / spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture* - fail +} New failures caught by the filter: * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6506/pig-snb-2600/spec@arb_texture_multisample@sample-position@2.html
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated: {- pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch* / spec@glsl-1.30@execution@tex-miplevel-selection texture* - fail -} {+ pig-snb-2600: spec@glsl-1.50@execution@tex* - fail +} New failures caught by the filter: * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6836/pig-snb-2600/spec@glsl-1.50@execution@texelfetch@gs-texelfetch-usampler2drect.html
-- GitLab Migration Automatic Message -- This bug has been migrated to freedesktop.org's GitLab instance and has been closed from further activity. You can subscribe and participate further through the new bug through this link to our GitLab instance: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/issues/1812.
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.