[CI][RESUME] igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-* - fail - Failed assertion: __vgem_fence_signal(fd, fence) == 0, error: -110 != 0

Submitted by Martin Peres @mupuf

Assigned to Intel GFX Bugs mailing list

Link to original bug (#111646)

Description

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

Depends on

• Bug 111880

added CI feature: GEM platform: BXT platform: CFL platform: CML platform: GLK platform: KBL platform: SKL platform: TGL priority::high + 1 deleted label

CI Bug Log said:

The CI Bug Log issue associated to this bug has been updated.

New filters associated

* TGL: igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-* - fail - Failed assertion: __vgem_fence_signal(fd, fence) == 0, error: -110 != 0
- https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_362/fi-tgl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-render.html
- https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_363/fi-tgl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-bsd2.html
- https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_14335/re-tgl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
- https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_363/fi-tgl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-bsd1.html
- https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_364/fi-tgl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-bsd2.html
- https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_364/fi-tgl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
- https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_364/fi-tgl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-bsd1.html
- https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_364/fi-tgl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-render.html

Chris Wilson @ickle said:

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.

Francesco Balestrieri @baleboy said:

Chris, is there a bug about RPS being disabled? IF not, should there be one?

Chris Wilson @ickle said:

(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.

Chris Wilson @ickle closed a related bug:

*** Bug 111929 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

CI Bug Log said:

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)

CI Bug Log said:

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

Francesco Balestrieri @baleboy said:

Marking as blocked by Bug 111880 since RPS won't likely be enabled until that is fixed.

CI Bug Log said:

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

CI Bug Log said:

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

CI Bug Log said:

A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated:

APL BXT 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 CFL 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-cfl-8700k/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_404/fi-cfl-guc/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_405/fi-cfl-8700k/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_405/fi-cfl-guc/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_406/fi-cfl-8700k/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_406/fi-cfl-guc/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_407/fi-cfl-8700k/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_407/fi-cfl-guc/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html

CI Bug Log said:

A CI Bug Log filter associated to this bug has been updated:

APL BXT SKL KBL GLK CFL TGL: igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-* - fail - Failed assertion: __vgem_fence_signal(fd, fence) == 0, error: -110 != 0
APL BXT SKL KBL GLK WHL CFL CML 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-cml-u2/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_404/fi-whl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_405/fi-cml-s/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_405/fi-cml-u2/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_405/fi-whl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_406/fi-cml-u2/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_406/fi-whl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_407/fi-cml-u2/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html
  
• https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/drmtip_407/fi-whl-u/igt@gem_exec_schedule@deep-blt.html

commit 686c7c35abc2201535e6921f9f5610a0b3c9194a
Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Date:   Wed Dec 11 23:08:57 2019 +0000

    drm/i915/gem: Asynchronous cmdparser
    
    Execute the cmdparser asynchronously as part of the submission pipeline.
    Using our dma-fences, we can schedule execution after an asynchronous
    piece of work, so we move the cmdparser out from under the struct_mutex
    inside execbuf as run it as part of the submission pipeline. The same
    security rules apply, we copy the user batch before validation and
    userspace cannot touch the validation shadow. The only caveat is that we
    will do request construction before we complete cmdparsing and so we
    cannot know the outcome of the validation step until later -- so the
    execbuf ioctl does not report -EINVAL directly, but we must cancel
    execution of the request and flag the error on the out-fence.
    
    Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/611
    Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/412
    Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
    Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
    Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20191211230858.599030-2-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk

closed

The CI Bug Log issue associated to this bug has been archived.

New failures matching the above filters will not be associated to this bug anymore.