On Wednesday, 1 October 2025 08:36:38 CEST Krzysztof Karas wrote: > Hi Janusz, > > > Subtests that measure time of resume after engine reset require results > > from at least 9 reset-resume cycles for reasonable calculation of a median > > value to be compared against presumed limits. On most of Gen12+ > > platforms, the limit of 5 seconds for collecting those results occurs too > > short for executing 9 reset-resum cycles. > reset-resum -> reset-resume, just a small typo. > > > > Raise the limit to 20 seconds, and break the loop as soon as 9 results are > > collected. Also, warn if less than 9 resets have been completed within > > the limit instead of silently succeeding despite the check being skipped. > > > > Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <[email protected]> > > --- > > tests/intel/gem_eio.c | 11 ++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/intel/gem_eio.c b/tests/intel/gem_eio.c > > index b65b914faf..b6155c7fc4 100644 > > --- a/tests/intel/gem_eio.c > > +++ b/tests/intel/gem_eio.c > > @@ -409,8 +409,10 @@ static void check_wait_elapsed(const char *prefix, int fd, igt_stats_t *st) > > igt_stats_get_median(st)*1e-6, > > igt_stats_get_max(st)*1e-6); > > > > - if (st->n_values < 9) > > - return; /* too few for stable median */ > > + if (igt_warn_on_f(st->n_values < 9, > > + "%d resets completed -- less than 9, too few for stable median\n", > > + st->n_values)) > > + return; > Is this warning indicative of a bug? I wonder if this will > result in having more WARN runs from CI. If there is nothing we > can do to amend this, as slow reset-resume cycles are caused by > hardware limitations, maybe igt_info would suffice?
If we want to be informed about resume after reset unexpectedly still longer on future platforms then an info message won't bring our attention, I believe. OTOH, I understand your concern on CI reported warnings we can't do much about. Let me think it over again. Thanks, Janusz > >
