On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:02:02AM -0500, robert.f...@collabora.com wrote:
> From: Rafael Antognolli <rafael.antogno...@intel.com>
>
> This test creates an already expired fence, then creates a merged fence
> out of that expired one (passed twice to the merge operation), and
> finally closes the merged fence. It shows that if the refcounts are
> wrong on the original expired fence, it might get freed while still in
> use. Usually a kernel panick will follow.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael Antognolli <rafael.antogno...@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <robert.f...@collabora.com>
> ---
> tests/sw_sync.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/sw_sync.c b/tests/sw_sync.c
> index 4e52f48..65416ad 100644
> --- a/tests/sw_sync.c
> +++ b/tests/sw_sync.c
> @@ -582,6 +582,31 @@ static void
> test_sync_multi_producer_single_consumer(void)
> pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
> }
>
> +static void test_sync_expired_merge(void)
> +{
> + int iterations = 1 << 20;
> + int timeline;
> + int i;
> + int fence_expired, fence_merged;
> +
> + timeline = sw_sync_timeline_create();
> +
> + sw_sync_timeline_inc(timeline, 100);
> + fence_expired = sw_sync_fence_create(timeline, 1);
igt_assert(sync_wait(fence_expired, 0) == 1);
or
igt_assert(fence_signaled(fence_expired));
Both illustrative of the setup, and tests them.
> + fence_merged = sync_merge(fence_expired, fence_expired);
> + close(fence_merged);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < iterations; i++) {
> + int fence = sync_merge(fence_expired, fence_expired);
> +
> + igt_assert_f(sync_wait(fence, -1) == 0,
> + "Failure waiting on fence\n");
> + close(fence);
Is the millionth iteration more likely to fail than iteration 0?
There's no change in code coverage, so is it worth the extra iterations?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
