Bug 59095 - [SNB]I-G-T/gem_tiled_swapping fail
Summary: [SNB]I-G-T/gem_tiled_swapping fail
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 56859
Alias: None
Product: DRI
Classification: Unclassified
Component: DRM/Intel (show other bugs)
Version: XOrg git
Hardware: Other All
: medium normal
Assignee: Intel GFX Bugs mailing list
QA Contact: Intel GFX Bugs mailing list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-01-07 03:37 UTC by yanbing
Modified: 2013-01-08 08:28 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
i915 platform:
i915 features:


Attachments
gem_tiled_swapping.dmesg (69.08 KB, text/plain)
2013-01-07 03:37 UTC, yanbing
no flags Details

Description yanbing 2013-01-07 03:37:57 UTC
Created attachment 72606 [details]
gem_tiled_swapping.dmesg

Environment:
--------------------------
Kernel: (drm-intel-next-queued)c0c36b941b6f0be6ac74f340040cbb29d6a0b06c
Some additional commit info:
Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Date:   Wed Dec 19 16:08:43 2012 +0000

    drm/i915: Return the real error code from intel_set_mode()


Steps:
---------------------------

./gem_tiled_swapping


Result:
--------------------------
1.mismatch at 81920: -378754475
2.$?=130
3.gem_tiled_swapping.dmesg in the attachment
4 [review].I can't find a good commit on the next_queue branch.
Comment 1 Chris Wilson 2013-01-07 12:53:32 UTC
Smells like a repeat of bug #56859

I have a similar problem once again only on a 32-bit snb system, the 64-bit snb runs through the test suite without a problem.
Comment 2 Daniel Vetter 2013-01-07 14:23:31 UTC
Note that dinq is still on a rather old baseline, so if this can't be reproduced on latest -fixes, it's indeed a dupe of #56859. Can you please also check whether you can only reproduce this on 32bit or also on 64bit.
Comment 3 Chris Wilson 2013-01-07 14:30:54 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> I have a similar problem once again only on a 32-bit snb system, the 64-bit
> snb runs through the test suite without a problem.

After making sure I was running the right kernel, I can't reproduce with nightly on a 32-bit snb.
Comment 4 yanbing 2013-01-08 01:42:22 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Note that dinq is still on a rather old baseline, so if this can't be
> reproduced on latest -fixes, it's indeed a dupe of #56859. Can you please
> also check whether you can only reproduce this on 32bit or also on 64bit.

1.It only happend on 32-bit snb (x-sgb4,x-hnr5).
2.I had used the latest fixed kernel,also had this problem,the commit info is below:

Kernel: (drm-intel-fixes)1c93c0aac95ffb327b7b187711870e1377386b03
Some additional commit info:
Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Date:   Wed Jan 2 10:31:22 2013 +0000

    drm/i915; Only increment the user-pin-count after successfully pinning the bo
Comment 5 yanbing 2013-01-08 01:43:08 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Note that dinq is still on a rather old baseline, so if this can't be
> reproduced on latest -fixes, it's indeed a dupe of #56859. Can you please
> also check whether you can only reproduce this on 32bit or also on 64bit.

1.It only happend on 32-bit snb (x-sgb4,x-hnr5).
2.I had used the latest fixed kernel,also had this problem,the commit info is below:

Kernel: (drm-intel-fixes)1c93c0aac95ffb327b7b187711870e1377386b03
Some additional commit info:
Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Date:   Wed Jan 2 10:31:22 2013 +0000

    drm/i915; Only increment the user-pin-count after successfully pinning the bo
Comment 6 yanbing 2013-01-08 03:42:21 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Note that dinq is still on a rather old baseline, so if this can't be
> > reproduced on latest -fixes, it's indeed a dupe of #56859. Can you please
> > also check whether you can only reproduce this on 32bit or also on 64bit.
> 
> 1.It only happend on 32-bit snb (x-sgb4,x-hnr5).
> 2.I had used the latest fixed kernel,also had this problem,the commit info
> is below:
> 
> Kernel: (drm-intel-fixes)1c93c0aac95ffb327b7b187711870e1377386b03
> Some additional commit info:
> Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Date:   Wed Jan 2 10:31:22 2013 +0000
> 
>     drm/i915; Only increment the user-pin-count after successfully pinning
> the bo

1.I'm soory to say that the comment 4&5 was wrong.
2.I had retry the latest fixes and nightly branch,were all OK.
3.The latest fix branch info:

Kernel: (drm-intel-fixes)3490ea5de6ac4af309c3df8a26a5cca61306334c
Some additional commit info:
Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Date:   Mon Jan 7 10:11:40 2013 +0000

    drm/i915: Treat crtc->mode.clock == 0 as disabled

4.The latest nightly braanch info:

Kernel: (drm-intel-nightly)52d697693f8e5bebd9c469dff214f608438bd6b8
Some additional commit info:
Merge: 2cb2e1d eda85d6
Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Date:   Mon Jan 7 21:56:06 2013 +0100
Comment 7 Daniel Vetter 2013-01-08 08:09:22 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 56859 ***


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.