Bug 111646 - [CI][RESUME] igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-* - fail - Failed assertion: __vgem_fence_signal(fd, fence) == 0, error: -110 != 0
Summary: [CI][RESUME] igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-* - fail - Failed assertion: __vgem_f...
Status: RESOLVED MOVED
Alias: None
Product: DRI
Classification: Unclassified
Component: DRM/Intel (show other bugs)
Version: XOrg git
Hardware: Other All
: high not set
Assignee: Intel GFX Bugs mailing list
QA Contact: Intel GFX Bugs mailing list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 111929 (view as bug list)
Depends on: 111880
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2019-09-11 07:42 UTC by Martin Peres
Modified: 2019-11-29 19:27 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
i915 platform: BXT, CFL, CML, GLK, KBL, SKL, TGL
i915 features: GEM/Other


Attachments

Description Martin Peres 2019-09-11 07:42:47 UTC
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_364/fi-tgl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-bsd2.html

Starting subtest: deep-bsd2
(gem_exec_schedule:2746) igt_vgem-CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function vgem_fence_signal, file ../lib/igt_vgem.c:193:
(gem_exec_schedule:2746) igt_vgem-CRITICAL: Failed assertion: __vgem_fence_signal(fd, fence) == 0
(gem_exec_schedule:2746) igt_vgem-CRITICAL: error: -110 != 0
Comment 2 Chris Wilson 2019-09-11 07:53:52 UTC
Of the few remaining vgem fences in here, you had to go and hit it. This is likely just because tgl is not using rps yet and so is too slow.
Comment 3 Francesco Balestrieri 2019-09-27 05:39:49 UTC
Chris, is there a bug about RPS being disabled? IF not, should there be one?
Comment 4 Chris Wilson 2019-09-27 10:16:34 UTC
(In reply to Francesco Balestrieri from comment #3)
> Chris, is there a bug about RPS being disabled? IF not, should there be one?

Bug 111650 is rps not being responsive; now we have it currently disabled to reduced the number of tgl lockups.
Comment 5 Chris Wilson 2019-10-08 21:05:56 UTC
*** Bug 111929 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 CI Bug Log 2019-10-09 08:09:11 UTC
The CI Bug Log issue associated to this bug has been updated.

### New filters associated

* TGL: igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-render - fail - Failed assertion: read_buf[n] == ctx[n % 1024]
  (No new failures associated)
Comment 7 CI Bug Log 2019-10-16 09:28:36 UTC
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated:

{- TGL: igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-* - fail - Failed assertion: __vgem_fence_signal(fd, fence) == 0, error: -110 != 0 -}
{+ TGL: igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-* - fail - Failed assertion: __vgem_fence_signal(fd, fence) == 0, error: -110 != 0 +}

New failures caught by the filter:

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7093/re-tgl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-bsd1.html
Comment 8 Francesco Balestrieri 2019-11-11 09:41:41 UTC
Marking as blocked by Bug 111880 since RPS won't likely be enabled until that is fixed.
Comment 9 CI Bug Log 2019-11-15 06:48:05 UTC
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated:

{- TGL: igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-* - fail - Failed assertion: __vgem_fence_signal(fd, fence) == 0, error: -110 != 0 -}
{+ APL SKL KBL GLK TGL: igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-* - fail - Failed assertion: __vgem_fence_signal(fd, fence) == 0, error: -110 != 0 +}

New failures caught by the filter:

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7340/shard-apl2/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7340/shard-glk3/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7340/shard-kbl3/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7340/shard-skl8/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7341/shard-apl7/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7341/shard-glk2/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7341/shard-kbl1/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7341/shard-skl6/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7342/shard-apl2/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7342/shard-glk4/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7342/shard-kbl3/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7342/shard-skl2/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_5280/shard-apl7/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_5280/shard-glk5/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_5280/shard-kbl6/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_5280/shard-skl3/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
Comment 10 CI Bug Log 2019-11-20 11:08:51 UTC
A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated:

{- APL SKL KBL GLK TGL: igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-* - fail - Failed assertion: __vgem_fence_signal(fd, fence) == 0, error: -110 != 0 -}
{+ APL BXT SKL KBL GLK TGL: igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-* - fail - Failed assertion: __vgem_fence_signal(fd, fence) == 0, error: -110 != 0 +}

New failures caught by the filter:

  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_404/fi-bxt-dsi/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_405/fi-bxt-dsi/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_406/fi-bxt-dsi/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  * https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_407/fi-bxt-dsi/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
Comment 13 Martin Peres 2019-11-29 19:27:53 UTC
-- 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/drm/intel/issues/412.


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.