Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)

2022-07-01 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin



On 30/06/2022 15:20, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 29/06/2022 13:51, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 28/06/2022 17:22, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 28/06/2022 09:46, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 27/06/2022 18:08, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 22/06/2022 10:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 21/06/2022 20:11, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 21/06/2022 18:37, Patchwork wrote:

*Patch Details*
*Series:*    drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
*URL:*    https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/ 


*State:*    failure
*Details:* 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html 
 




  CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 -> Patchwork_101396v5


    Summary

*FAILURE*

Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5 
absolutely need to be

verified manually.

If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the 
changes
introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, please notify your bug team to 
allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false 
positives in CI.


External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html 




    Participating hosts (40 -> 41)

Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9
Missing (1): fi-bdw-samus


    Possible new issues

Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_101396v5:



  IGT changes


    Possible regressions

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
  o bat-adlp-4: PASS
 


    -> DMESG-FAIL
 





I keep hitting clobbered pages during engine resets on bat-adlp-4.
It seems to happen most of the time on that machine and 
occasionally on bat-adlp-6.


Should bat-adlp-4 be considered an unreliable machine like 
bat-adlp-6 is for now?


Alternatively, seeing the history of this in

commit 3da3c5c1c9825c24168f27b021339e90af37e969 "drm/i915: 
Exclude low pages (128KiB) of stolen from use"


could this be an indication that maybe the original issue is 
worse on adlp machines?
I have only ever seen page page 135 or 136 clobbered across many 
runs via trybot, so it looks fairly consistent.

Though excluding the use of over 540K of stolen might be too severe.


Don't know but I see that on the latest version you even hit pages 
165/166.


Any history of hitting this in CI without your series? If not, are 
there some other changes which could explain it? Are you touching 
the selftest itself?


Hexdump of the clobbered page looks quite complex. Especially 
POISON_FREE. Any idea how that ends up there?



(see 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_105517v4/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html#dmesg-warnings702) 



after lots of slow debug via CI, it looks like the issue is that a 
ring buffer was allocated and taking up that page during the 
initial crc capture in the test, but by the time it came to check 
for corruption, it had been freed from that page.


The test has a number of weaknesses:

1. the busy check is done twice, without taking in to account any 
change in between. I assume previously this could be relied on 
never to occur, but now it can for some reason (more on that later)


You mean the stolen page used/unused test? Probably the premise is 
that the test controls the driver completely ie. is the sole user 
and the two checks are run at the time where nothing else could have 
changed the state.


With the nerfed request (as with GuC) this actually should hold. In 
the generic case I am less sure, my working knowledge faded a bit, 
but perhaps there was something guaranteeing the spinner couldn't 
have been retired yet at the time of the second check. Would need 
clarifying at least in comments.


2. the engine reset returns early with an error for guc submission 
engines, but it is silently ignored in the test. Perhaps it should 
ignore guc submission engines as it is a largely useless test for 
those situations.


Yes looks dodgy indeed. You will need to summon the owners of the 
GuC backend to comment on this.


However even if the test should be skipped with GuC it is extremely 
interesting that you are hitting this so I suspect there is a more 
serious issue at play.


indeed. That's why I am keen to get to the root cause instead of just 
slapping in a fix.




A quick obvious fix is to have a busy bitmask that remembers each 
page's busy state initially and only check for corruption if it was 
busy during both checks.


However, the main question is why this is occurring now with my 
changes.
I have added more debug to check where the stolen memory is being 
freed, but the first run last night didn't hit the issue for once.
I am running again now, will report back if I figure out where it 
is being freed.


I am pretty sur

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)

2022-06-30 Thread Robert Beckett




On 30/06/2022 15:52, Hellstrom, Thomas wrote:

Hi!

On Thu, 2022-06-30 at 15:20 +0100, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 29/06/2022 13:51, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 28/06/2022 17:22, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 28/06/2022 09:46, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 27/06/2022 18:08, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 22/06/2022 10:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 21/06/2022 20:11, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 21/06/2022 18:37, Patchwork wrote:

*Patch Details*
*Series:*    drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
*URL:*
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/

*State:*    failure
*Details:*
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html
  
<

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html






   CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 ->
Patchwork_101396v5


     Summary

*FAILURE*

Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5
absolutely
need to be
verified manually.

If you think the reported changes have nothing to do
with the
changes
introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, please notify your
bug team to
allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce
false
positives in CI.

External URL:
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html
  




     Participating hosts (40 -> 41)

Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9
Missing (1): fi-bdw-samus


     Possible new issues

Here are the unknown changes that may have been
introduced in
Patchwork_101396v5:


   IGT changes


     Possible regressions

   * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
   o bat-adlp-4: PASS
<
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11790/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html




     -> DMESG-FAIL
<
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html







I keep hitting clobbered pages during engine resets on
bat-adlp-4.
It seems to happen most of the time on that machine and
occasionally on bat-adlp-6.

Should bat-adlp-4 be considered an unreliable machine
like
bat-adlp-6 is for now?

Alternatively, seeing the history of this in

commit 3da3c5c1c9825c24168f27b021339e90af37e969
"drm/i915: Exclude
low pages (128KiB) of stolen from use"

could this be an indication that maybe the original issue
is worse
on adlp machines?
I have only ever seen page page 135 or 136 clobbered
across many
runs via trybot, so it looks fairly consistent.
Though excluding the use of over 540K of stolen might be
too severe.


Don't know but I see that on the latest version you even
hit pages
165/166.

Any history of hitting this in CI without your series? If
not, are
there some other changes which could explain it? Are you
touching
the selftest itself?

Hexdump of the clobbered page looks quite complex.
Especially
POISON_FREE. Any idea how that ends up there?



(see
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_105517v4/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html#dmesg-warnings702
)


after lots of slow debug via CI, it looks like the issue is
that a
ring buffer was allocated and taking up that page during the
initial
crc capture in the test, but by the time it came to check for
corruption, it had been freed from that page.

The test has a number of weaknesses:

1. the busy check is done twice, without taking in to account
any
change in between. I assume previously this could be relied
on never
to occur, but now it can for some reason (more on that later)


You mean the stolen page used/unused test? Probably the premise
is
that the test controls the driver completely ie. is the sole
user and
the two checks are run at the time where nothing else could
have
changed the state.

With the nerfed request (as with GuC) this actually should
hold. In
the generic case I am less sure, my working knowledge faded a
bit,
but perhaps there was something guaranteeing the spinner
couldn't
have been retired yet at the time of the second check. Would
need
clarifying at least in comments.


2. the engine reset returns early with an error for guc
submission
engines, but it is silently ignored in the test. Perhaps it
should
ignore guc submission engines as it is a largely useless test
for
those situations.


Yes looks dodgy indeed. You will need to summon the owners of
the GuC
backend to comment on this.

However even if the test should be skipped with GuC it is
extremely
interesting that you are hitting this so I suspect there is a
more
serious issue at play.


indeed. That's why I am keen to get to the root cause instead of
just
slapping in a fix.




A quick obvious fix is to have a busy bitmask that remembers
each
page's busy state initially and only check for corruption if
it was
busy during both checks.

However, the main question is why this is occurring now with
my
changes.
I have added more debug to check where the stolen memory is
being
freed, but the first run last night didn't hit the issue for
once.
I am running again now, will report back if I figure out
where it is
being 

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)

2022-06-30 Thread Hellstrom, Thomas
Hi!

On Thu, 2022-06-30 at 15:20 +0100, Robert Beckett wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29/06/2022 13:51, Robert Beckett wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 28/06/2022 17:22, Robert Beckett wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 28/06/2022 09:46, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 27/06/2022 18:08, Robert Beckett wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 22/06/2022 10:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 21/06/2022 20:11, Robert Beckett wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 21/06/2022 18:37, Patchwork wrote:
> > > > > > > > *Patch Details*
> > > > > > > > *Series:*    drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
> > > > > > > > *URL:*   
> > > > > > > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/ 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > *State:*    failure
> > > > > > > > *Details:* 
> > > > > > > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >   CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 ->
> > > > > > > > Patchwork_101396v5
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >     Summary
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > *FAILURE*
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5
> > > > > > > > absolutely 
> > > > > > > > need to be
> > > > > > > > verified manually.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > If you think the reported changes have nothing to do
> > > > > > > > with the 
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, please notify your
> > > > > > > > bug team to 
> > > > > > > > allow them
> > > > > > > > to document this new failure mode, which will reduce
> > > > > > > > false 
> > > > > > > > positives in CI.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > External URL: 
> > > > > > > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >     Participating hosts (40 -> 41)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9
> > > > > > > > Missing (1): fi-bdw-samus
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >     Possible new issues
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Here are the unknown changes that may have been
> > > > > > > > introduced in 
> > > > > > > > Patchwork_101396v5:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >   IGT changes
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >     Possible regressions
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >   * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
> > > > > > > >   o bat-adlp-4: PASS
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11790/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >     -> DMESG-FAIL
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I keep hitting clobbered pages during engine resets on
> > > > > > > bat-adlp-4.
> > > > > > > It seems to happen most of the time on that machine and 
> > > > > > > occasionally on bat-adlp-6.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Should bat-adlp-4 be considered an unreliable machine
> > > > > > > like 
> > > > > > > bat-adlp-6 is for now?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Alternatively, seeing the history of this in
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > commit 3da3c5c1c9825c24168f27b021339e90af37e969
> > > > > > > "drm/i915: Exclude 
> > > > > > > low pages (128KiB) of stolen from use"
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > could this be an indication that maybe the original issue
> > > > > > > is worse 
> > > > > > > on adlp machines?
> > > > > > > I have only ever seen page page 135 or 136 clobbered
> > > > > > > across many 
> > > > > > > runs via trybot, so it looks fairly consistent.
> > > > > > > Though excluding the use of over 540K of stolen might be
> > > > > > > too severe.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Don't know but I see that on the latest version you even
> > > > > > hit pages 
> > > > > > 165/166.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Any history of hitting this in CI without your series? If
> > > > > > not, are 
> > > > > > there some other changes which could explain it? Are you
> > > > > > touching 
> > > > > > the selftest itself?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hexdump of the clobbered page looks quite complex.
> > > > > > Especially 
> > > > > > POISON_FREE. Any idea how that ends up there?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > (see 
> > > > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_105517v4/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html#dmesg-warnings702
> > > > > )
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > after lots of slow debug via CI, it looks like the issue is
> > > > > that a 
> > > > > ring buffer was allocated and taking up that page during the
> > > > > i

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)

2022-06-30 Thread Robert Beckett




On 29/06/2022 13:51, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 28/06/2022 17:22, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 28/06/2022 09:46, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 27/06/2022 18:08, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 22/06/2022 10:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 21/06/2022 20:11, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 21/06/2022 18:37, Patchwork wrote:

*Patch Details*
*Series:*    drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
*URL:*    https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/ 


*State:*    failure
*Details:* 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html 
 




  CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 -> Patchwork_101396v5


    Summary

*FAILURE*

Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5 absolutely 
need to be

verified manually.

If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the 
changes
introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, please notify your bug team to 
allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false 
positives in CI.


External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html 




    Participating hosts (40 -> 41)

Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9
Missing (1): fi-bdw-samus


    Possible new issues

Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_101396v5:



  IGT changes


    Possible regressions

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
  o bat-adlp-4: PASS
 


    -> DMESG-FAIL
 





I keep hitting clobbered pages during engine resets on bat-adlp-4.
It seems to happen most of the time on that machine and 
occasionally on bat-adlp-6.


Should bat-adlp-4 be considered an unreliable machine like 
bat-adlp-6 is for now?


Alternatively, seeing the history of this in

commit 3da3c5c1c9825c24168f27b021339e90af37e969 "drm/i915: Exclude 
low pages (128KiB) of stolen from use"


could this be an indication that maybe the original issue is worse 
on adlp machines?
I have only ever seen page page 135 or 136 clobbered across many 
runs via trybot, so it looks fairly consistent.

Though excluding the use of over 540K of stolen might be too severe.


Don't know but I see that on the latest version you even hit pages 
165/166.


Any history of hitting this in CI without your series? If not, are 
there some other changes which could explain it? Are you touching 
the selftest itself?


Hexdump of the clobbered page looks quite complex. Especially 
POISON_FREE. Any idea how that ends up there?



(see 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_105517v4/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html#dmesg-warnings702) 



after lots of slow debug via CI, it looks like the issue is that a 
ring buffer was allocated and taking up that page during the initial 
crc capture in the test, but by the time it came to check for 
corruption, it had been freed from that page.


The test has a number of weaknesses:

1. the busy check is done twice, without taking in to account any 
change in between. I assume previously this could be relied on never 
to occur, but now it can for some reason (more on that later)


You mean the stolen page used/unused test? Probably the premise is 
that the test controls the driver completely ie. is the sole user and 
the two checks are run at the time where nothing else could have 
changed the state.


With the nerfed request (as with GuC) this actually should hold. In 
the generic case I am less sure, my working knowledge faded a bit, 
but perhaps there was something guaranteeing the spinner couldn't 
have been retired yet at the time of the second check. Would need 
clarifying at least in comments.


2. the engine reset returns early with an error for guc submission 
engines, but it is silently ignored in the test. Perhaps it should 
ignore guc submission engines as it is a largely useless test for 
those situations.


Yes looks dodgy indeed. You will need to summon the owners of the GuC 
backend to comment on this.


However even if the test should be skipped with GuC it is extremely 
interesting that you are hitting this so I suspect there is a more 
serious issue at play.


indeed. That's why I am keen to get to the root cause instead of just 
slapping in a fix.




A quick obvious fix is to have a busy bitmask that remembers each 
page's busy state initially and only check for corruption if it was 
busy during both checks.


However, the main question is why this is occurring now with my 
changes.
I have added more debug to check where the stolen memory is being 
freed, but the first run last night didn't hit the issue for once.
I am running again now, will report back if I figure out where it is 
being freed.


I am pretty sure the "corruption" (which isn't actually corr

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)

2022-06-29 Thread Robert Beckett




On 28/06/2022 17:22, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 28/06/2022 09:46, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 27/06/2022 18:08, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 22/06/2022 10:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 21/06/2022 20:11, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 21/06/2022 18:37, Patchwork wrote:

*Patch Details*
*Series:*    drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
*URL:*    https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/ 


*State:*    failure
*Details:* 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html 
 




  CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 -> Patchwork_101396v5


    Summary

*FAILURE*

Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5 absolutely 
need to be

verified manually.

If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, please notify your bug team to 
allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false 
positives in CI.


External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html 




    Participating hosts (40 -> 41)

Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9
Missing (1): fi-bdw-samus


    Possible new issues

Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_101396v5:



  IGT changes


    Possible regressions

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
  o bat-adlp-4: PASS
 


    -> DMESG-FAIL
 





I keep hitting clobbered pages during engine resets on bat-adlp-4.
It seems to happen most of the time on that machine and 
occasionally on bat-adlp-6.


Should bat-adlp-4 be considered an unreliable machine like 
bat-adlp-6 is for now?


Alternatively, seeing the history of this in

commit 3da3c5c1c9825c24168f27b021339e90af37e969 "drm/i915: Exclude 
low pages (128KiB) of stolen from use"


could this be an indication that maybe the original issue is worse 
on adlp machines?
I have only ever seen page page 135 or 136 clobbered across many 
runs via trybot, so it looks fairly consistent.

Though excluding the use of over 540K of stolen might be too severe.


Don't know but I see that on the latest version you even hit pages 
165/166.


Any history of hitting this in CI without your series? If not, are 
there some other changes which could explain it? Are you touching 
the selftest itself?


Hexdump of the clobbered page looks quite complex. Especially 
POISON_FREE. Any idea how that ends up there?



(see 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_105517v4/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html#dmesg-warnings702) 



after lots of slow debug via CI, it looks like the issue is that a 
ring buffer was allocated and taking up that page during the initial 
crc capture in the test, but by the time it came to check for 
corruption, it had been freed from that page.


The test has a number of weaknesses:

1. the busy check is done twice, without taking in to account any 
change in between. I assume previously this could be relied on never 
to occur, but now it can for some reason (more on that later)


You mean the stolen page used/unused test? Probably the premise is 
that the test controls the driver completely ie. is the sole user and 
the two checks are run at the time where nothing else could have 
changed the state.


With the nerfed request (as with GuC) this actually should hold. In 
the generic case I am less sure, my working knowledge faded a bit, but 
perhaps there was something guaranteeing the spinner couldn't have 
been retired yet at the time of the second check. Would need 
clarifying at least in comments.


2. the engine reset returns early with an error for guc submission 
engines, but it is silently ignored in the test. Perhaps it should 
ignore guc submission engines as it is a largely useless test for 
those situations.


Yes looks dodgy indeed. You will need to summon the owners of the GuC 
backend to comment on this.


However even if the test should be skipped with GuC it is extremely 
interesting that you are hitting this so I suspect there is a more 
serious issue at play.


indeed. That's why I am keen to get to the root cause instead of just 
slapping in a fix.




A quick obvious fix is to have a busy bitmask that remembers each 
page's busy state initially and only check for corruption if it was 
busy during both checks.


However, the main question is why this is occurring now with my changes.
I have added more debug to check where the stolen memory is being 
freed, but the first run last night didn't hit the issue for once.
I am running again now, will report back if I figure out where it is 
being freed.


I am pretty sure the "corruption" (which isn't actually corruption) 
is from a ring buffer.
The POISON_FREE 

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)

2022-06-28 Thread Robert Beckett




On 28/06/2022 09:46, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 27/06/2022 18:08, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 22/06/2022 10:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 21/06/2022 20:11, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 21/06/2022 18:37, Patchwork wrote:

*Patch Details*
*Series:*    drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
*URL:*    https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/ 


*State:*    failure
*Details:* 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html 
 




  CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 -> Patchwork_101396v5


    Summary

*FAILURE*

Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5 absolutely 
need to be

verified manually.

If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, please notify your bug team to 
allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false 
positives in CI.


External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html



    Participating hosts (40 -> 41)

Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9
Missing (1): fi-bdw-samus


    Possible new issues

Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_101396v5:



  IGT changes


    Possible regressions

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
  o bat-adlp-4: PASS
 


    -> DMESG-FAIL
 





I keep hitting clobbered pages during engine resets on bat-adlp-4.
It seems to happen most of the time on that machine and occasionally 
on bat-adlp-6.


Should bat-adlp-4 be considered an unreliable machine like 
bat-adlp-6 is for now?


Alternatively, seeing the history of this in

commit 3da3c5c1c9825c24168f27b021339e90af37e969 "drm/i915: Exclude 
low pages (128KiB) of stolen from use"


could this be an indication that maybe the original issue is worse 
on adlp machines?
I have only ever seen page page 135 or 136 clobbered across many 
runs via trybot, so it looks fairly consistent.

Though excluding the use of over 540K of stolen might be too severe.


Don't know but I see that on the latest version you even hit pages 
165/166.


Any history of hitting this in CI without your series? If not, are 
there some other changes which could explain it? Are you touching the 
selftest itself?


Hexdump of the clobbered page looks quite complex. Especially 
POISON_FREE. Any idea how that ends up there?



(see 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_105517v4/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html#dmesg-warnings702) 



after lots of slow debug via CI, it looks like the issue is that a 
ring buffer was allocated and taking up that page during the initial 
crc capture in the test, but by the time it came to check for 
corruption, it had been freed from that page.


The test has a number of weaknesses:

1. the busy check is done twice, without taking in to account any 
change in between. I assume previously this could be relied on never 
to occur, but now it can for some reason (more on that later)


You mean the stolen page used/unused test? Probably the premise is that 
the test controls the driver completely ie. is the sole user and the two 
checks are run at the time where nothing else could have changed the state.


With the nerfed request (as with GuC) this actually should hold. In the 
generic case I am less sure, my working knowledge faded a bit, but 
perhaps there was something guaranteeing the spinner couldn't have been 
retired yet at the time of the second check. Would need clarifying at 
least in comments.


2. the engine reset returns early with an error for guc submission 
engines, but it is silently ignored in the test. Perhaps it should 
ignore guc submission engines as it is a largely useless test for 
those situations.


Yes looks dodgy indeed. You will need to summon the owners of the GuC 
backend to comment on this.


However even if the test should be skipped with GuC it is extremely 
interesting that you are hitting this so I suspect there is a more 
serious issue at play.


indeed. That's why I am keen to get to the root cause instead of just 
slapping in a fix.




A quick obvious fix is to have a busy bitmask that remembers each 
page's busy state initially and only check for corruption if it was 
busy during both checks.


However, the main question is why this is occurring now with my changes.
I have added more debug to check where the stolen memory is being 
freed, but the first run last night didn't hit the issue for once.
I am running again now, will report back if I figure out where it is 
being freed.


I am pretty sure the "corruption" (which isn't actually corruption) is 
from a ring buffer.
The POISON_FREE is the only difference between the captured befor

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)

2022-06-28 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin



On 27/06/2022 18:08, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 22/06/2022 10:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 21/06/2022 20:11, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 21/06/2022 18:37, Patchwork wrote:

*Patch Details*
*Series:*    drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
*URL:*    https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/ 


*State:*    failure
*Details:* 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html 
 




  CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 -> Patchwork_101396v5


    Summary

*FAILURE*

Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5 absolutely 
need to be

verified manually.

If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, please notify your bug team to 
allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives 
in CI.


External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html



    Participating hosts (40 -> 41)

Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9
Missing (1): fi-bdw-samus


    Possible new issues

Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_101396v5:



  IGT changes


    Possible regressions

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
  o bat-adlp-4: PASS
 


    -> DMESG-FAIL
 





I keep hitting clobbered pages during engine resets on bat-adlp-4.
It seems to happen most of the time on that machine and occasionally 
on bat-adlp-6.


Should bat-adlp-4 be considered an unreliable machine like bat-adlp-6 
is for now?


Alternatively, seeing the history of this in

commit 3da3c5c1c9825c24168f27b021339e90af37e969 "drm/i915: Exclude 
low pages (128KiB) of stolen from use"


could this be an indication that maybe the original issue is worse on 
adlp machines?
I have only ever seen page page 135 or 136 clobbered across many runs 
via trybot, so it looks fairly consistent.

Though excluding the use of over 540K of stolen might be too severe.


Don't know but I see that on the latest version you even hit pages 
165/166.


Any history of hitting this in CI without your series? If not, are 
there some other changes which could explain it? Are you touching the 
selftest itself?


Hexdump of the clobbered page looks quite complex. Especially 
POISON_FREE. Any idea how that ends up there?



(see 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_105517v4/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html#dmesg-warnings702) 



after lots of slow debug via CI, it looks like the issue is that a ring 
buffer was allocated and taking up that page during the initial crc 
capture in the test, but by the time it came to check for corruption, it 
had been freed from that page.


The test has a number of weaknesses:

1. the busy check is done twice, without taking in to account any change 
in between. I assume previously this could be relied on never to occur, 
but now it can for some reason (more on that later)


You mean the stolen page used/unused test? Probably the premise is that 
the test controls the driver completely ie. is the sole user and the two 
checks are run at the time where nothing else could have changed the state.


With the nerfed request (as with GuC) this actually should hold. In the 
generic case I am less sure, my working knowledge faded a bit, but 
perhaps there was something guaranteeing the spinner couldn't have been 
retired yet at the time of the second check. Would need clarifying at 
least in comments.


2. the engine reset returns early with an error for guc submission 
engines, but it is silently ignored in the test. Perhaps it should 
ignore guc submission engines as it is a largely useless test for those 
situations.


Yes looks dodgy indeed. You will need to summon the owners of the GuC 
backend to comment on this.


However even if the test should be skipped with GuC it is extremely 
interesting that you are hitting this so I suspect there is a more 
serious issue at play.


A quick obvious fix is to have a busy bitmask that remembers each page's 
busy state initially and only check for corruption if it was busy during 
both checks.


However, the main question is why this is occurring now with my changes.
I have added more debug to check where the stolen memory is being freed, 
but the first run last night didn't hit the issue for once.
I am running again now, will report back if I figure out where it is 
being freed.


I am pretty sure the "corruption" (which isn't actually corruption) is 
from a ring buffer.
The POISON_FREE is the only difference between the captured before and 
after dumps:


[0040]  0280 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 
6b6b6b6b


with the 2nd dword being the MI_ARB_

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)

2022-06-27 Thread Robert Beckett




On 22/06/2022 10:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 21/06/2022 20:11, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 21/06/2022 18:37, Patchwork wrote:

*Patch Details*
*Series:*    drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
*URL:*    https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/ 


*State:*    failure
*Details:* 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html  




  CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 -> Patchwork_101396v5


    Summary

*FAILURE*

Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5 absolutely 
need to be

verified manually.

If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, please notify your bug team to 
allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives 
in CI.


External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html



    Participating hosts (40 -> 41)

Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9
Missing (1): fi-bdw-samus


    Possible new issues

Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_101396v5:



  IGT changes


    Possible regressions

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
  o bat-adlp-4: PASS
 


    -> DMESG-FAIL
 





I keep hitting clobbered pages during engine resets on bat-adlp-4.
It seems to happen most of the time on that machine and occasionally 
on bat-adlp-6.


Should bat-adlp-4 be considered an unreliable machine like bat-adlp-6 
is for now?


Alternatively, seeing the history of this in

commit 3da3c5c1c9825c24168f27b021339e90af37e969 "drm/i915: Exclude low 
pages (128KiB) of stolen from use"


could this be an indication that maybe the original issue is worse on 
adlp machines?
I have only ever seen page page 135 or 136 clobbered across many runs 
via trybot, so it looks fairly consistent.

Though excluding the use of over 540K of stolen might be too severe.


Don't know but I see that on the latest version you even hit pages 165/166.

Any history of hitting this in CI without your series? If not, are there 
some other changes which could explain it? Are you touching the selftest 
itself?


Hexdump of the clobbered page looks quite complex. Especially 
POISON_FREE. Any idea how that ends up there?



(see 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_105517v4/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html#dmesg-warnings702)


after lots of slow debug via CI, it looks like the issue is that a ring 
buffer was allocated and taking up that page during the initial crc 
capture in the test, but by the time it came to check for corruption, it 
had been freed from that page.


The test has a number of weaknesses:

1. the busy check is done twice, without taking in to account any change 
in between. I assume previously this could be relied on never to occur, 
but now it can for some reason (more on that later)


2. the engine reset returns early with an error for guc submission 
engines, but it is silently ignored in the test. Perhaps it should 
ignore guc submission engines as it is a largely useless test for those 
situations.



A quick obvious fix is to have a busy bitmask that remembers each page's 
busy state initially and only check for corruption if it was busy during 
both checks.


However, the main question is why this is occurring now with my changes.
I have added more debug to check where the stolen memory is being freed, 
but the first run last night didn't hit the issue for once.
I am running again now, will report back if I figure out where it is 
being freed.


I am pretty sure the "corruption" (which isn't actually corruption) is 
from a ring buffer.
The POISON_FREE is the only difference between the captured before and 
after dumps:


[0040]  0280 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 
6b6b6b6b


with the 2nd dword being the MI_ARB_CHECK used for the spinner.
I think this is the request poisoning from i915_request_retire()

The bit I don't know yet is why a ring buffer was freed between the 
initial crc capture and the corruption check. The spinner should be 
active across the entire test, maintaining a ref on the context and it's 
ring.


hopefully my latest debug will give more answers.




Btw what is the benefit of converting stolen to start with? It's not 
much of a backend since it just uses the drm range manager. So quite 
thin and uneventful. Diffstats for the series also do not look like you 
end up with much code reduction?


Regards,

Tvrtko


Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)

2022-06-22 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin



On 21/06/2022 20:11, Robert Beckett wrote:



On 21/06/2022 18:37, Patchwork wrote:

*Patch Details*
*Series:*    drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
*URL:*    https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/ 


*State:*    failure
*Details:* 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html 




  CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 -> Patchwork_101396v5


    Summary

*FAILURE*

Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5 absolutely need 
to be

verified manually.

If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, please notify your bug team to allow 
them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives 
in CI.


External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html



    Participating hosts (40 -> 41)

Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9
Missing (1): fi-bdw-samus


    Possible new issues

Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_101396v5:



  IGT changes


    Possible regressions

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
  o bat-adlp-4: PASS

 


    -> DMESG-FAIL

 





I keep hitting clobbered pages during engine resets on bat-adlp-4.
It seems to happen most of the time on that machine and occasionally on 
bat-adlp-6.


Should bat-adlp-4 be considered an unreliable machine like bat-adlp-6 is 
for now?


Alternatively, seeing the history of this in

commit 3da3c5c1c9825c24168f27b021339e90af37e969 "drm/i915: Exclude low 
pages (128KiB) of stolen from use"


could this be an indication that maybe the original issue is worse on 
adlp machines?
I have only ever seen page page 135 or 136 clobbered across many runs 
via trybot, so it looks fairly consistent.

Though excluding the use of over 540K of stolen might be too severe.


Don't know but I see that on the latest version you even hit pages 165/166.

Any history of hitting this in CI without your series? If not, are there 
some other changes which could explain it? Are you touching the selftest 
itself?


Hexdump of the clobbered page looks quite complex. Especially 
POISON_FREE. Any idea how that ends up there?


Btw what is the benefit of converting stolen to start with? It's not 
much of a backend since it just uses the drm range manager. So quite 
thin and uneventful. Diffstats for the series also do not look like you 
end up with much code reduction?


Regards,

Tvrtko


[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev6)

2022-06-21 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev6)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11793 -> Patchwork_101396v6


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v6 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_101396v6, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v6/index.html

Participating hosts (43 -> 40)
--

  Missing(3): fi-kbl-soraka fi-icl-u2 fi-bdw-samus 

Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_101396v6:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
- fi-rkl-guc: [PASS][1] -> [DMESG-FAIL][2]
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11793/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v6/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html
- bat-adlp-4: [PASS][3] -> [DMESG-FAIL][4]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11793/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v6/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html

  
 Suppressed 

  The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses.
  They do not affect the overall result.

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
- {bat-adlp-6}:   [DMESG-FAIL][5] ([i915#4983]) -> [DMESG-FAIL][6]
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11793/bat-adlp-6/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v6/bat-adlp-6/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html

  * igt@kms_busy@basic@flip:
- {bat-dg2-9}:[PASS][7] -> [DMESG-WARN][8]
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11793/bat-dg2-9/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v6/bat-dg2-9/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html

  
Known issues


  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_101396v6 that come from known issues:

### IGT changes ###

 Issues hit 

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@gem:
- fi-blb-e6850:   NOTRUN -> [DMESG-FAIL][9] ([i915#4528])
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v6/fi-blb-e6850/igt@i915_selftest@l...@gem.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@hangcheck:
- fi-hsw-4770:[PASS][10] -> [INCOMPLETE][11] ([i915#4785])
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11793/fi-hsw-4770/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v6/fi-hsw-4770/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html
- bat-dg1-6:  [PASS][12] -> [DMESG-FAIL][13] ([i915#4494] / 
[i915#4957])
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11793/bat-dg1-6/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v6/bat-dg1-6/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html

  * igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-modeset@a-edp1:
- fi-tgl-u2:  [PASS][14] -> [DMESG-WARN][15] ([i915#402]) +2 
similar issues
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11793/fi-tgl-u2/igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-mode...@a-edp1.html
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v6/fi-tgl-u2/igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-mode...@a-edp1.html

  * igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-modeset@b-edp1:
- bat-adlp-4: [PASS][16] -> [DMESG-WARN][17] ([i915#3576]) +2 
similar issues
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11793/bat-adlp-4/igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-mode...@b-edp1.html
   [17]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v6/bat-adlp-4/igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-mode...@b-edp1.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-hsw-4770:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][18] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#4312] / 
[i915#5594] / [i915#6246])
   [18]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v6/fi-hsw-4770/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Possible fixes 

  * igt@i915_pm_rpm@module-reload:
- fi-cfl-8109u:   [DMESG-WARN][19] ([i915#62]) -> [PASS][20] +1 similar 
issue
   [19]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11793/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@i915_pm_...@module-reload.html
   [20]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v6/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@i915_pm_...@module-reload.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@late_gt_pm:
- fi-cfl-8109u:   [DMESG-WARN][21] ([i915#5904]) -> [PASS][22] +34 
similar issues
   [21]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11793/fi-cfl-8109

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)

2022-06-21 Thread Robert Beckett




On 21/06/2022 18:37, Patchwork wrote:

*Patch Details*
*Series:*   drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
*URL:*	https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/ 


*State:*failure
*Details:* 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html 




  CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 -> Patchwork_101396v5


Summary

*FAILURE*

Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5 absolutely need to be
verified manually.

If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, please notify your bug team to allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html



Participating hosts (40 -> 41)

Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9
Missing (1): fi-bdw-samus


Possible new issues

Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_101396v5:



  IGT changes


Possible regressions

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
  o bat-adlp-4: PASS


-> DMESG-FAIL





I keep hitting clobbered pages during engine resets on bat-adlp-4.
It seems to happen most of the time on that machine and occasionally on 
bat-adlp-6.


Should bat-adlp-4 be considered an unreliable machine like bat-adlp-6 is 
for now?


Alternatively, seeing the history of this in

commit 3da3c5c1c9825c24168f27b021339e90af37e969 "drm/i915: Exclude low 
pages (128KiB) of stolen from use"


could this be an indication that maybe the original issue is worse on 
adlp machines?
I have only ever seen page page 135 or 136 clobbered across many runs 
via trybot, so it looks fairly consistent.

Though excluding the use of over 540K of stolen might be too severe.




Suppressed

The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses.
They do not affect the overall result.

  * igt@kms_busy@basic@flip:
  o {bat-dg2-9}: NOTRUN -> DMESG-WARN




Known issues

Here are the changes found in Patchwork_101396v5 that come from known 
issues:



  IGT changes


Issues hit

  *

igt@gem_huc_copy@huc-copy:

  o fi-icl-u2: NOTRUN -> SKIP


(i915#2190 )
  *

igt@gem_lmem_swapping@random-engines:

  o fi-icl-u2: NOTRUN -> SKIP


(i915#4613
) +3
similar issues
  *

igt@i915_pm_rpm@module-reload:

  o bat-adlp-4: PASS


-> DMESG-WARN


(i915#1888
 /
i915#3576 )
  *

igt@i915_selftest@live@hangcheck:

  o bat-dg1-6: PASS


-> DMESG-FAIL


(i915#4494
 /
i915#4957 )
  *

igt@i915_suspend@basic-s3-without-i915:

  o fi-icl-u2: NOTRUN -> SKIP


(i915#5903 )
  *

igt@kms_busy@basic@flip:

  o bat-adlp-4: PASS


-> DMESG-WARN


(i915#3576 )
  *

igt@kms_chamelium@common-hpd-after-suspend:

  o

fi-hsw-g3258: NOTRUN -> SKIP



[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)

2022-06-21 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 -> Patchwork_101396v5


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html

Participating hosts (40 -> 41)
--

  Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9 
  Missing(1): fi-bdw-samus 

Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_101396v5:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
- bat-adlp-4: [PASS][1] -> [DMESG-FAIL][2]
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11790/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html

  
 Suppressed 

  The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses.
  They do not affect the overall result.

  * igt@kms_busy@basic@flip:
- {bat-dg2-9}:NOTRUN -> [DMESG-WARN][3]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/bat-dg2-9/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html

  
Known issues


  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_101396v5 that come from known issues:

### IGT changes ###

 Issues hit 

  * igt@gem_huc_copy@huc-copy:
- fi-icl-u2:  NOTRUN -> [SKIP][4] ([i915#2190])
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/fi-icl-u2/igt@gem_huc_c...@huc-copy.html

  * igt@gem_lmem_swapping@random-engines:
- fi-icl-u2:  NOTRUN -> [SKIP][5] ([i915#4613]) +3 similar issues
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/fi-icl-u2/igt@gem_lmem_swapp...@random-engines.html

  * igt@i915_pm_rpm@module-reload:
- bat-adlp-4: [PASS][6] -> [DMESG-WARN][7] ([i915#1888] / 
[i915#3576])
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11790/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_pm_...@module-reload.html
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_pm_...@module-reload.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@hangcheck:
- bat-dg1-6:  [PASS][8] -> [DMESG-FAIL][9] ([i915#4494] / 
[i915#4957])
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11790/bat-dg1-6/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/bat-dg1-6/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html

  * igt@i915_suspend@basic-s3-without-i915:
- fi-icl-u2:  NOTRUN -> [SKIP][10] ([i915#5903])
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/fi-icl-u2/igt@i915_susp...@basic-s3-without-i915.html

  * igt@kms_busy@basic@flip:
- bat-adlp-4: [PASS][11] -> [DMESG-WARN][12] ([i915#3576])
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11790/bat-adlp-4/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/bat-adlp-4/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html

  * igt@kms_chamelium@common-hpd-after-suspend:
- fi-hsw-g3258:   NOTRUN -> [SKIP][13] ([fdo#109271] / [fdo#111827])
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/fi-hsw-g3258/igt@kms_chamel...@common-hpd-after-suspend.html
- fi-hsw-4770:NOTRUN -> [SKIP][14] ([fdo#109271] / [fdo#111827])
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/fi-hsw-4770/igt@kms_chamel...@common-hpd-after-suspend.html
- fi-blb-e6850:   NOTRUN -> [SKIP][15] ([fdo#109271])
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/fi-blb-e6850/igt@kms_chamel...@common-hpd-after-suspend.html
- fi-pnv-d510:NOTRUN -> [SKIP][16] ([fdo#109271])
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/fi-pnv-d510/igt@kms_chamel...@common-hpd-after-suspend.html

  * igt@kms_chamelium@hdmi-hpd-fast:
- fi-icl-u2:  NOTRUN -> [SKIP][17] ([fdo#111827]) +8 similar issues
   [17]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/fi-icl-u2/igt@kms_chamel...@hdmi-hpd-fast.html

  * igt@kms_cursor_legacy@basic-busy-flip-before-cursor-legacy:
- fi-icl-u2:  NOTRUN -> [SKIP][18] ([fdo#109278] / [i915#4103]) +1 
similar issue
   [18]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/fi-icl-u2/igt@kms_cursor_leg...@basic-busy-flip-before-cursor-legacy.html

  * igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-modeset@a-edp1:
- fi-tgl-u2:  [PASS][19] -> [DMESG-WAR

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev4)

2022-06-21 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev4)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11788 -> Patchwork_101396v4


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v4 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_101396v4, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v4/index.html

Participating hosts (41 -> 40)
--

  Additional (1): bat-dg2-9 
  Missing(2): fi-icl-u2 fi-bdw-samus 

Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_101396v4:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
- bat-adlp-4: [PASS][1] -> [DMESG-FAIL][2]
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11788/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v4/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html

  
 Suppressed 

  The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses.
  They do not affect the overall result.

  * igt@kms_busy@basic@flip:
- {bat-dg2-9}:NOTRUN -> [DMESG-WARN][3]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v4/bat-dg2-9/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html

  
Known issues


  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_101396v4 that come from known issues:

### IGT changes ###

 Issues hit 

  * igt@i915_pm_rpm@module-reload:
- bat-adlp-4: [PASS][4] -> [DMESG-WARN][5] ([i915#1888] / 
[i915#3576])
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11788/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_pm_...@module-reload.html
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v4/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_pm_...@module-reload.html
- fi-bsw-n3050:   [PASS][6] -> [FAIL][7] ([i915#6042])
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11788/fi-bsw-n3050/igt@i915_pm_...@module-reload.html
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v4/fi-bsw-n3050/igt@i915_pm_...@module-reload.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@hangcheck:
- fi-hsw-g3258:   [PASS][8] -> [INCOMPLETE][9] ([i915#4785])
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11788/fi-hsw-g3258/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v4/fi-hsw-g3258/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html

  * igt@kms_busy@basic@flip:
- bat-adlp-4: [PASS][10] -> [DMESG-WARN][11] ([i915#3576]) +1 
similar issue
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11788/bat-adlp-4/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v4/bat-adlp-4/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html
- fi-tgl-u2:  [PASS][12] -> [DMESG-WARN][13] ([i915#402]) +1 
similar issue
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11788/fi-tgl-u2/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v4/fi-tgl-u2/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-hsw-g3258:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][14] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#4312] / 
[i915#6246])
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v4/fi-hsw-g3258/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Possible fixes 

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@hangcheck:
- bat-dg1-6:  [DMESG-FAIL][15] ([i915#4494] / [i915#4957]) -> 
[PASS][16]
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11788/bat-dg1-6/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v4/bat-dg1-6/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html

  * igt@kms_busy@basic@modeset:
- bat-adlp-4: [DMESG-WARN][17] ([i915#3576]) -> [PASS][18]
   [17]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11788/bat-adlp-4/igt@kms_busy@ba...@modeset.html
   [18]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v4/bat-adlp-4/igt@kms_busy@ba...@modeset.html

  * igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-modeset@b-edp1:
- {bat-adlp-6}:   [DMESG-WARN][19] ([i915#3576]) -> [PASS][20] +1 
similar issue
   [19]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11788/bat-adlp-6/igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-mode...@b-edp1.html
   [20]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v4/bat-adlp-6/igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-mode...@b-edp1.html

  
  {name}: This element is suppressed. This means it is ignored when computing
  the status of the difference (SUCCESS, WARNING, or FAILURE).

  [fdo#109271]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109271
  [fdo#109278]: htt

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev3)

2022-06-20 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev3)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11786 -> Patchwork_101396v3


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v3 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_101396v3, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/index.html

Participating hosts (41 -> 43)
--

  Additional (3): fi-kbl-soraka bat-dg2-8 fi-rkl-11600 
  Missing(1): fi-bdw-samus 

Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_101396v3:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
- fi-rkl-guc: [PASS][1] -> [DMESG-FAIL][2]
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11786/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html
- bat-adlp-4: [PASS][3] -> [DMESG-FAIL][4]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11786/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html

  
 Suppressed 

  The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses.
  They do not affect the overall result.

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
- {bat-adlp-6}:   [PASS][5] -> [DMESG-FAIL][6]
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11786/bat-adlp-6/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/bat-adlp-6/igt@i915_selftest@l...@reset.html

  * igt@kms_busy@basic@flip:
- {bat-dg2-9}:[PASS][7] -> [DMESG-WARN][8]
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11786/bat-dg2-9/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/bat-dg2-9/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html

  
Known issues


  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_101396v3 that come from known issues:

### IGT changes ###

 Issues hit 

  * igt@gem_huc_copy@huc-copy:
- fi-kbl-soraka:  NOTRUN -> [SKIP][9] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#2190])
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/fi-kbl-soraka/igt@gem_huc_c...@huc-copy.html
- fi-rkl-11600:   NOTRUN -> [SKIP][10] ([i915#2190])
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/fi-rkl-11600/igt@gem_huc_c...@huc-copy.html

  * igt@gem_lmem_swapping@basic:
- fi-kbl-soraka:  NOTRUN -> [SKIP][11] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#4613]) +3 
similar issues
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/fi-kbl-soraka/igt@gem_lmem_swapp...@basic.html
- fi-rkl-11600:   NOTRUN -> [SKIP][12] ([i915#4613]) +3 similar issues
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/fi-rkl-11600/igt@gem_lmem_swapp...@basic.html

  * igt@gem_tiled_pread_basic:
- fi-rkl-11600:   NOTRUN -> [SKIP][13] ([i915#3282])
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/fi-rkl-11600/igt@gem_tiled_pread_basic.html

  * igt@i915_pm_backlight@basic-brightness:
- fi-rkl-11600:   NOTRUN -> [SKIP][14] ([i915#3012])
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/fi-rkl-11600/igt@i915_pm_backli...@basic-brightness.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@gem:
- fi-pnv-d510:NOTRUN -> [DMESG-FAIL][15] ([i915#4528])
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/fi-pnv-d510/igt@i915_selftest@l...@gem.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@gt_pm:
- fi-kbl-soraka:  NOTRUN -> [DMESG-FAIL][16] ([i915#1886])
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/fi-kbl-soraka/igt@i915_selftest@live@gt_pm.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@hangcheck:
- fi-snb-2600:[PASS][17] -> [INCOMPLETE][18] ([i915#3921])
   [17]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11786/fi-snb-2600/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html
   [18]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/fi-snb-2600/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html
- bat-dg1-6:  [PASS][19] -> [DMESG-FAIL][20] ([i915#4494] / 
[i915#4957])
   [19]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11786/bat-dg1-6/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html
   [20]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v3/bat-dg1-6/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html

  * igt@i915_suspend@basic-s3-without-i915:
- fi-rkl-11600:   NOTRUN -> [INCOM

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen region (rev6)

2022-04-29 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: ttm for stolen region (rev6)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/102540/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11582 -> Patchwork_102540v6


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_102540v6 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_102540v6, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/index.html

Participating hosts (43 -> 43)
--

  Additional (2): bat-rpls-1 fi-rkl-11600 
  Missing(2): fi-bsw-cyan fi-icl-u2 

Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_102540v6:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-cfl-8700k:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][1]
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-cfl-8700k/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bdw-5557u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][2]
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bxt-dsi: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][3]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-bxt-dsi/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-adl-ddr5:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][4]
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-adl-ddr5/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cfl-guc: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][5]
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-cfl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-glk-j4005:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][6]
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-glk-j4005/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Warnings 

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-apl-guc: [FAIL][7] ([i915#4312]) -> [FAIL][8]
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11582/fi-apl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-apl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Suppressed 

  The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses.
  They do not affect the overall result.

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- {bat-adln-1}:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][9]
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/bat-adln-1/igt@run...@aborted.html
- {fi-jsl-1}: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][10]
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-jsl-1/igt@run...@aborted.html
- {fi-ehl-2}: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][11]
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-ehl-2/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
Known issues


  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_102540v6 that come from known issues:

### IGT changes ###

 Issues hit 

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-rkl-11600:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][12] ([i915#5602])
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-rkl-11600/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bsw-kefka:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][13] ([i915#3690])
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-bsw-kefka/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cfl-8109u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][14] ([i915#5602])
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bsw-nick:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][15] ([i915#3690])
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-bsw-nick/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-kbl-soraka:  NOTRUN -> [FAIL][16] ([i915#5602])
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-kbl-soraka/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-kbl-7500u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][17] ([i915#5602])
   [17]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-kbl-7500u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-kbl-guc: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][18] ([i915#5602])
   [18]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-kbl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-rkl-guc: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][19] ([i915#5602])
   [19]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-rkl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-kbl-7567u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][20] ([i915#5602])
   [20]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-kbl-7567u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-skl-guc: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][21] ([i915#5602])
   [21]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-skl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-skl-6700k2:  NOTRUN -> [FAIL][22] ([i915#5602])
   [22]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v6/fi-skl-6700k2/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bsw-n3050:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][23] ([i915#3690])
  

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen region (rev5)

2022-04-28 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: ttm for stolen region (rev5)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/102540/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11550 -> Patchwork_102540v5


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_102540v5 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_102540v5, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/index.html

Participating hosts (43 -> 45)
--

  Additional (4): bat-dg2-8 bat-adls-5 bat-dg1-6 bat-adlp-4 
  Missing(2): fi-bsw-cyan fi-pnv-d510 

Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_102540v5:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@kms_force_connector_basic@force-connector-state:
- fi-kbl-8809g:   [PASS][1] -> [DMESG-WARN][2]
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11550/fi-kbl-8809g/igt@kms_force_connector_ba...@force-connector-state.html
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-kbl-8809g/igt@kms_force_connector_ba...@force-connector-state.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-cfl-8700k:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][3]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-cfl-8700k/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bxt-dsi: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][4]
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-bxt-dsi/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-adl-ddr5:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][5]
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-adl-ddr5/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cfl-guc: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][6]
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-cfl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-glk-j4005:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][7]
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-glk-j4005/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Warnings 

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-apl-guc: [FAIL][8] ([i915#4312]) -> [FAIL][9]
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11550/fi-apl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-apl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bdw-5557u:   [FAIL][10] ([i915#4312]) -> [FAIL][11]
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11550/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@run...@aborted.html
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Suppressed 

  The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses.
  They do not affect the overall result.

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- {fi-jsl-1}: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][12]
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-jsl-1/igt@run...@aborted.html
- {fi-ehl-2}: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][13]
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-ehl-2/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
Known issues


  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_102540v5 that come from known issues:

### IGT changes ###

 Issues hit 

  * igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s0@smem:
- bat-dg1-6:  NOTRUN -> [INCOMPLETE][14] ([i915#5827])
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/bat-dg1-6/igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic...@smem.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@hangcheck:
- fi-hsw-g3258:   [PASS][15] -> [INCOMPLETE][16] ([i915#4785])
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11550/fi-hsw-g3258/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-hsw-g3258/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-rkl-11600:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][17] ([i915#5602])
   [17]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-rkl-11600/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bsw-kefka:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][18] ([i915#3690])
   [18]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-bsw-kefka/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cfl-8109u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][19] ([i915#5602])
   [19]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bsw-nick:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][20] ([i915#3690])
   [20]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-bsw-nick/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-kbl-8809g:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][21] ([i915#4312])
   [21]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v5/fi-kbl-8809g/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-hsw-g3258:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][22] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#4312])
   [22]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tre

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen region (rev4)

2022-04-21 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: ttm for stolen region (rev4)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/102540/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11537 -> Patchwork_102540v4


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_102540v4 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_102540v4, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/index.html

Participating hosts (45 -> 46)
--

  Additional (3): fi-cml-u2 fi-bdw-gvtdvm fi-bdw-5557u 
  Missing(2): fi-bsw-cyan fi-icl-u2 

Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_102540v4:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@mman:
- bat-dg1-5:  [PASS][1] -> [INCOMPLETE][2]
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11537/bat-dg1-5/igt@i915_selftest@l...@mman.html
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/bat-dg1-5/igt@i915_selftest@l...@mman.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-cfl-8700k:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][3]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-cfl-8700k/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bdw-5557u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][4]
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cml-u2:  NOTRUN -> [FAIL][5]
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-cml-u2/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bxt-dsi: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][6]
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-bxt-dsi/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-adl-ddr5:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][7]
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-adl-ddr5/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cfl-guc: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][8]
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-cfl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-glk-j4005:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][9]
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-glk-j4005/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Warnings 

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-apl-guc: [FAIL][10] ([i915#4312]) -> [FAIL][11]
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11537/fi-apl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-apl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Suppressed 

  The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses.
  They do not affect the overall result.

  * igt@gem_lmem_swapping@verify-random:
- {bat-dg2-9}:NOTRUN -> [SKIP][12] +3 similar issues
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/bat-dg2-9/igt@gem_lmem_swapp...@verify-random.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- {fi-jsl-1}: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][13]
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-jsl-1/igt@run...@aborted.html
- {fi-ehl-2}: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][14]
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-ehl-2/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
Known issues


  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_102540v4 that come from known issues:

### IGT changes ###

 Issues hit 

  * igt@fbdev@write:
- fi-bdw-gvtdvm:  NOTRUN -> [SKIP][15] ([fdo#109271]) +5 similar issues
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-bdw-gvtdvm/igt@fb...@write.html

  * igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s0@smem:
- fi-bdw-gvtdvm:  NOTRUN -> [INCOMPLETE][16] ([i915#4831])
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-bdw-gvtdvm/igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic...@smem.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@gt_engines:
- bat-dg1-6:  [PASS][17] -> [DMESG-FAIL][18] ([i915#4418])
   [17]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11537/bat-dg1-6/igt@i915_selftest@live@gt_engines.html
   [18]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/bat-dg1-6/igt@i915_selftest@live@gt_engines.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-rkl-11600:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][19] ([i915#5602])
   [19]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-rkl-11600/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bsw-kefka:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][20] ([i915#3690])
   [20]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-bsw-kefka/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cfl-8109u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][21] ([i915#5602])
   [21]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v4/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- bat-dg1-5:  NOTRUN -> [FAIL][22] ([i915#4312])
   [22]:

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen region (rev3)

2022-04-13 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: ttm for stolen region (rev3)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/102540/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11493 -> Patchwork_102540v3


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_102540v3 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_102540v3, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/index.html

Participating hosts (48 -> 48)
--

  Additional (2): bat-hsw-1 fi-pnv-d510 
  Missing(2): fi-bsw-cyan fi-bdw-samus 

Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_102540v3:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-cfl-8700k:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][1]
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-cfl-8700k/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bdw-5557u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][2]
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bxt-dsi: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][3]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-bxt-dsi/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-adl-ddr5:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][4]
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-adl-ddr5/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cfl-guc: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][5]
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-cfl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-glk-j4005:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][6]
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-glk-j4005/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Warnings 

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-apl-guc: [FAIL][7] ([i915#4312]) -> [FAIL][8]
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11493/fi-apl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-apl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Suppressed 

  The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses.
  They do not affect the overall result.

  * igt@gem_lmem_swapping@parallel-random-engines:
- {bat-hsw-1}:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][9]
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/bat-hsw-1/igt@gem_lmem_swapp...@parallel-random-engines.html

  * igt@i915_module_load@reload:
- {bat-dg2-9}:[PASS][10] -> [FAIL][11]
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11493/bat-dg2-9/igt@i915_module_l...@reload.html
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/bat-dg2-9/igt@i915_module_l...@reload.html

  * igt@i915_pm_rpm@module-reload:
- {bat-dg2-9}:NOTRUN -> [SKIP][12] +1 similar issue
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/bat-dg2-9/igt@i915_pm_...@module-reload.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@gem:
- {bat-dg2-9}:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][13] +34 similar issues
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/bat-dg2-9/igt@i915_selftest@l...@gem.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- {fi-jsl-1}: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][14]
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-jsl-1/igt@run...@aborted.html
- {fi-ehl-2}: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][15]
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-ehl-2/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
Known issues


  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_102540v3 that come from known issues:

### IGT changes ###

 Issues hit 

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@hangcheck:
- fi-snb-2600:[PASS][16] -> [INCOMPLETE][17] ([i915#3921])
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11493/fi-snb-2600/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html
   [17]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-snb-2600/igt@i915_selftest@l...@hangcheck.html

  * igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@compare-crc-sanitycheck-pipe-c:
- fi-pnv-d510:NOTRUN -> [SKIP][18] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#5341])
   [18]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-pnv-d510/igt@kms_pipe_crc_ba...@compare-crc-sanitycheck-pipe-c.html

  * igt@prime_vgem@basic-userptr:
- fi-pnv-d510:NOTRUN -> [SKIP][19] ([fdo#109271]) +39 similar issues
   [19]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-pnv-d510/igt@prime_v...@basic-userptr.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-rkl-11600:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][20] ([i915#5602])
   [20]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v3/fi-rkl-11600/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bsw-kefka:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][21] ([i915#3690])
   [21]: 
http

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen region (rev2)

2022-04-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: ttm for stolen region (rev2)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/102540/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11489 -> Patchwork_102540v2


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_102540v2 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_102540v2, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/index.html

Participating hosts (46 -> 47)
--

  Additional (3): fi-icl-u2 bat-adls-5 fi-pnv-d510 
  Missing(2): fi-bsw-cyan fi-bdw-samus 

Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_102540v2:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-cfl-8700k:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][1]
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-cfl-8700k/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-hsw-g3258:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][2]
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-hsw-g3258/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bxt-dsi: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][3]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-bxt-dsi/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-adl-ddr5:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][4]
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-adl-ddr5/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cfl-guc: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][5]
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-cfl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-glk-j4005:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][6]
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-glk-j4005/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Warnings 

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-apl-guc: [FAIL][7] ([i915#4312]) -> [FAIL][8]
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11489/fi-apl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-apl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bdw-5557u:   [FAIL][9] ([i915#4312]) -> [FAIL][10]
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11489/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@run...@aborted.html
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Suppressed 

  The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses.
  They do not affect the overall result.

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- {fi-jsl-1}: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][11]
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-jsl-1/igt@run...@aborted.html
- {fi-ehl-2}: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][12]
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-ehl-2/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
Known issues


  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_102540v2 that come from known issues:

### IGT changes ###

 Issues hit 

  * igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@compare-crc-sanitycheck-pipe-c:
- fi-pnv-d510:NOTRUN -> [SKIP][13] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#5341])
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-pnv-d510/igt@kms_pipe_crc_ba...@compare-crc-sanitycheck-pipe-c.html

  * igt@prime_vgem@basic-userptr:
- fi-pnv-d510:NOTRUN -> [SKIP][14] ([fdo#109271]) +39 similar issues
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-pnv-d510/igt@prime_v...@basic-userptr.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-rkl-11600:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][15] ([i915#5602])
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bsw-kefka:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][16] ([i915#3690])
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-bsw-kefka/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cfl-8109u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][17] ([i915#5602])
   [17]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-icl-u2:  NOTRUN -> [FAIL][18] ([i915#3690])
   [18]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-icl-u2/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bsw-nick:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][19] ([i915#3690])
   [19]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-bsw-nick/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-kbl-soraka:  NOTRUN -> [FAIL][20] ([i915#5602])
   [20]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-kbl-soraka/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-kbl-7500u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][21] ([i915#5602])
   [21]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v2/fi-kbl-7500u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-kbl-guc: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][22] ([i915#5602])
   [22]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen region

2022-04-11 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: ttm for stolen region
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/102540/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11484 -> Patchwork_102540v1


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_102540v1 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_102540v1, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/index.html

Participating hosts (49 -> 38)
--

  Additional (2): fi-kbl-soraka fi-hsw-4770 
  Missing(13): shard-tglu bat-dg1-6 bat-dg2-8 shard-rkl bat-dg2-9 
fi-bsw-cyan bat-adlp-6 bat-adlp-4 bat-rpls-1 bat-rpls-2 shard-dg1 bat-jsl-2 
bat-jsl-1 

Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_102540v1:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@mman:
- fi-ivb-3770:[PASS][1] -> [DMESG-FAIL][2] +1 similar issue
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11484/fi-ivb-3770/igt@i915_selftest@l...@mman.html
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-ivb-3770/igt@i915_selftest@l...@mman.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-snb-2600:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][3]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-snb-2600/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-ilk-650: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][4]
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-ilk-650/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bdw-gvtdvm:  NOTRUN -> [FAIL][5]
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-bdw-gvtdvm/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cfl-8700k:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][6]
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-cfl-8700k/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cfl-8109u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][7]
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-snb-2520m:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][8]
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-snb-2520m/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bdw-5557u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][9]
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-bdw-5557u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bwr-2160:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][10]
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-bwr-2160/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-hsw-g3258:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][11]
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-hsw-g3258/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-kbl-soraka:  NOTRUN -> [FAIL][12]
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-kbl-soraka/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-kbl-7500u:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][13]
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-kbl-7500u/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-rkl-guc: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][14]
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-rkl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-bxt-dsi: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][15]
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-bxt-dsi/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-adl-ddr5:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][16]
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-adl-ddr5/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-elk-e7500:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][17]
   [17]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-elk-e7500/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-cfl-guc: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][18]
   [18]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-cfl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-glk-j4005:   NOTRUN -> [FAIL][19]
   [19]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-glk-j4005/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-skl-guc: NOTRUN -> [FAIL][20]
   [20]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-skl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-skl-6700k2:  NOTRUN -> [FAIL][21]
   [21]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-skl-6700k2/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Warnings 

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-kbl-8809g:   [FAIL][22] ([i915#2722]) -> [FAIL][23]
   [22]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11484/fi-kbl-8809g/igt@run...@aborted.html
   [23]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-kbl-8809g/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-apl-guc: [FAIL][24] ([i915#4312]) -> [FAIL][25]
   [24]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11484/fi-apl-guc/igt@run...@aborted.html
   [25]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_102540v1/fi-apl-guc/igt@run...@a

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen

2022-03-15 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: ttm for stolen
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11365 -> Patchwork_22575


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_22575 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_22575, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/index.html

Participating hosts (48 -> 34)
--

  Additional (3): fi-kbl-soraka bat-dg2-8 bat-adls-5 
  Missing(17): fi-bxt-dsi shard-tglu fi-hsw-4200u shard-rkl fi-glk-dsi 
bat-dg2-9 fi-cfl-8700k fi-bsw-cyan fi-kbl-7500u fi-ctg-p8600 fi-cfl-guc 
fi-glk-j4005 fi-kbl-x1275 fi-cfl-8109u bat-rpls-2 shard-dg1 fi-bdw-samus 

Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_22575:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries:
- fi-elk-e7500:   [PASS][1] -> [INCOMPLETE][2]
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11365/fi-elk-e7500/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-elk-e7500/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html
- fi-snb-2600:[PASS][3] -> [INCOMPLETE][4]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11365/fi-snb-2600/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-snb-2600/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html
- fi-blb-e6850:   [PASS][5] -> [INCOMPLETE][6]
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11365/fi-blb-e6850/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-blb-e6850/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html
- fi-bwr-2160:[PASS][7] -> [INCOMPLETE][8]
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11365/fi-bwr-2160/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-bwr-2160/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html
- fi-snb-2520m:   [PASS][9] -> [INCOMPLETE][10]
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11365/fi-snb-2520m/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-snb-2520m/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html
- fi-ilk-650: [PASS][11] -> [INCOMPLETE][12]
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11365/fi-ilk-650/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-ilk-650/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html
- fi-kbl-soraka:  NOTRUN -> [INCOMPLETE][13]
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-kbl-soraka/igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@mman:
- fi-bsw-nick:[PASS][14] -> [INCOMPLETE][15]
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11365/fi-bsw-nick/igt@i915_selftest@l...@mman.html
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-bsw-nick/igt@i915_selftest@l...@mman.html

  * igt@kms_busy@basic@flip:
- fi-tgl-1115g4:  [PASS][16] -> [INCOMPLETE][17]
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11365/fi-tgl-1115g4/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html
   [17]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-tgl-1115g4/igt@kms_busy@ba...@flip.html

  * igt@kms_force_connector_basic@force-connector-state:
- fi-kbl-7567u:   [PASS][18] -> [DMESG-WARN][19]
   [18]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11365/fi-kbl-7567u/igt@kms_force_connector_ba...@force-connector-state.html
   [19]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-kbl-7567u/igt@kms_force_connector_ba...@force-connector-state.html
- fi-kbl-guc: [PASS][20] -> [DMESG-WARN][21]
   [20]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11365/fi-kbl-guc/igt@kms_force_connector_ba...@force-connector-state.html
   [21]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-kbl-guc/igt@kms_force_connector_ba...@force-connector-state.html

  * igt@runner@aborted:
- fi-bdw-gvtdvm:  NOTRUN -> [FAIL][22]
   [22]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-bdw-gvtdvm/igt@run...@aborted.html
- fi-ivb-3770:NOTRUN -> [FAIL][23]
   [23]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22575/fi-ivb-3770/igt@run...@aborted.html

  
 Suppressed 

  The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses.
  They do not affect the overall result.

  * igt@debugfs_test@read_all_entries:
- {bat