Bug 110767 - [CI][SHARDS] igt@perf_pmu@busy-idle-check-all-vcs0 - fail - Failed assertion: (double)(val[i]) <= (1.0 + (tolerance)) * (double)(0.0f) && (double)(val[i]) >= (1.0 - (tolerance)) * (double)(0.0f)
Summary: [CI][SHARDS] igt@perf_pmu@busy-idle-check-all-vcs0 - fail - Failed assertion:...
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
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: 2019-05-27 10:37 UTC by Martin Peres
Modified: 2019-05-28 11:14 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
i915 platform: SNB
i915 features: Perf/PMU


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Martin Peres 2019-05-27 10:37:13 UTC
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_13098/shard-snb6/igt@perf_pmu@busy-idle-check-all-vcs0.html

Starting subtest: busy-idle-check-all-vcs0
(perf_pmu:4625) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function busy_check_all, file ../tests/perf_pmu.c:479:
(perf_pmu:4625) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: (double)(val[i]) <= (1.0 + (tolerance)) * (double)(0.0f) && (double)(val[i]) >= (1.0 - (tolerance)) * (double)(0.0f)
(perf_pmu:4625) CRITICAL: 'val[i]' != '0.0f' (5000008.000000 not within +5.000000%/-5.000000% tolerance of 0.000000)
Subtest busy-idle-check-all-vcs0 failed.
Comment 1 CI Bug Log 2019-05-27 10:39:14 UTC
The CI Bug Log issue associated to this bug has been updated.

### New filters associated

* SNB: igt@perf_pmu@busy-idle-check-all-vcs0 - fail - Failed assertion: (double)(val[i]) &lt;= (1.0 + (tolerance)) * (double)(0.0f) &amp;&amp; (double)(val[i]) &gt;= (1.0 - (tolerance)) * (double)(0.0f)
  - https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_13098/shard-snb6/igt@perf_pmu@busy-idle-check-all-vcs0.html
Comment 2 Chris Wilson 2019-05-28 11:14:56 UTC
In a loop for 12 hours on snb, not a single failure. I did suspect it may have been fallout from the engine map overhaul, but that would have been consistent.


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.