Bug 86686 - [ILK/SNB]igt/kms_flip/nonblocking-read timeout
Summary: [ILK/SNB]igt/kms_flip/nonblocking-read timeout
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: DRI
Classification: Unclassified
Component: DRM/Intel (show other bugs)
Version: DRI 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: 2014-11-25 06:44 UTC by Guo Jinxian
Modified: 2017-10-06 14:33 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
i915 platform:
i915 features:

Attachments
dmesg (101.91 KB, text/plain)
2014-11-25 06:44 UTC, Guo Jinxian 		no flags Details
View All

Description Guo Jinxian 2014-11-25 06:44:27 UTC 
Created attachment 109984 [details]
dmesg

==System Environment==
--------------------------
Regression: No
The tests always fail, only occurs on -fixes branch.

Non-working platforms: SNB

==kernel==
--------------------------
origin/drm-intel-nightly: ab4b258a6ea5f58b5cb17131aced8f9a8dd64499(works)
    drm-intel-nightly: 2014y-11m-24d-21h-37m-18s UTC integration manifest
origin/drm-intel-next-queued: a259953ea9b7c86e437e0a620d37aad150a00b8f(works)
    drm/i915: Stop gathering error states for CS error interrupts
origin/drm-intel-fixes: bdfa7542d40e6251c232a802231b37116bd31b11(fails)
    drm/i915: Ignore SURFLIVE and flip counter when the GPU gets reset

==Bug detailed description==
igt/kms_flip/nonblocking-read timeout

Output:
[root@x-hnr9 tests]# ./kms_flip --run-subtest nonblocking-read
IGT-Version: 1.8-gd807891 (x86_64) (Linux: 3.18.0-rc6_drm-intel-fixes_bdfa75_20141125+ x86_64)
Using monotonic timestamps
Subtest nonblocking-read: TIMEOUT (5.001s)


==Reproduce steps==
---------------------------- 
1. ./kms_flip --run-subtest nonblocking-read
Comment 1 Chris Wilson 2014-11-25 07:34:50 UTC 
Expected, the fix is in -next.
Comment 2 Yi Sun 2014-11-26 02:21:05 UTC 
(In reply to Chris Wilson from comment #1)
> Expected, the fix is in -next.

Hi Chris, the -next branch here is drm-intel-next branch right?
I'm wondering the bug fix is after this bug report or before it?
Should we cover the separated drm-intel-next branch test results in future?
Comment 3 Daniel Vetter 2014-11-26 08:22:58 UTC 
(In reply to Yi Sun from comment #2)
> (In reply to Chris Wilson from comment #1)
> > Expected, the fix is in -next.
> 
> Hi Chris, the -next branch here is drm-intel-next branch right?
> I'm wondering the bug fix is after this bug report or before it?
> Should we cover the separated drm-intel-next branch test results in future?

Nope, -next is just drm-intel-next-queued at a later time. That's just an artifact of the patch flow to upstream, not relevant for validation.

Testing -fixes + -nightly is imo still all we need.
Comment 4 Daniel Vetter 2014-11-27 08:17:06 UTC 
Chris, I just realized that we've failed to have a feature flag for nonblocking. So can't actually test whether the kernel supports it and skip correctly.

Fix or wontfix?
Comment 5 Chris Wilson 2014-11-27 08:33:51 UTC 
Wontfix. drm never rejected O_NONBLOCK so it is not a new feature but a bug since its inception.
Comment 6 Guo Jinxian 2014-11-27 08:57:14 UTC 
Verified.
Comment 7 Elizabeth 2017-10-06 14:33:25 UTC 
Closing old verified.

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.