Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev18)

2020-05-25 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav 
That one is different patch and moreover could be even won't fix.
If we fail to disable qgv points - we fail. Could remove the message though
if it floods the logs too much.

Best Regards,

Lisovskiy Stanislav

Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo


From: Chris Wilson 
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 11:09:37 AM
To: Lisovskiy, Stanislav; Vudum, Lakshminarayana; 
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx]  ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when 
calculating CDCLK (rev18)

Quoting Lisovskiy, Stanislav (2020-05-25 09:07:03)
> Ok, lets check - in worst case I just need to find a GLK machine and bisect.

Also there is https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/1919 on
icl.
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev18)

2020-05-25 Thread Chris Wilson 
Quoting Lisovskiy, Stanislav (2020-05-25 09:07:03)
> Ok, lets check - in worst case I just need to find a GLK machine and bisect.

Also there is https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/1919 on
icl.
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev18)

2020-05-25 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav 
Ok, lets check - in worst case I just need to find a GLK machine and bisect.

Best Regards,

Lisovskiy Stanislav

Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo


From: Chris Wilson 
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 11:03:36 AM
To: Lisovskiy, Stanislav; Vudum, Lakshminarayana; 
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx]  ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when 
calculating CDCLK (rev18)

Quoting Lisovskiy, Stanislav (2020-05-25 09:00:33)
> I have seen those failures in other patches as well, i.e before my patches 
> landed.

Look again. CI is very clear, as is the bisect and revert.
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev18)

2020-05-25 Thread Chris Wilson 
Quoting Lisovskiy, Stanislav (2020-05-25 09:00:33)
> I have seen those failures in other patches as well, i.e before my patches 
> landed.

Look again. CI is very clear, as is the bisect and revert.
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev18)

2020-05-25 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav 
I have seen those failures in other patches as well, i.e before my patches 
landed.

Best Regards,

Lisovskiy Stanislav

Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo


From: Chris Wilson 
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 2:18:44 AM
To: Lisovskiy, Stanislav; Vudum, Lakshminarayana; 
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx]  ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when 
calculating CDCLK (rev18)

Quoting Chris Wilson (2020-05-22 23:00:10)
> Quoting Lisovskiy, Stanislav (2020-05-21 10:35:42)
> > Seems to be unrelated issue. There seems to be some list corruption 
> > happening in drm fb manipulation code.
> > if those patches would be causing that (like some severe mem corruption)- 
> > it would happen much more broadly than single test and single platform. 
> > Moreover there is no direct  connection to the changes.
>
> The fi-glk-dsi failure in module reload is a result of this series.
> Somehow you have angered the i915 pm around snd_hda_intel.
> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/fi-glk-dsi/igt@i915_pm_...@module-reload.html

CI says "drm/i915: Adjust CDCLK accordingly to our DBuf bw needs" is the
culprit.
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev18)

2020-05-22 Thread Chris Wilson 
Quoting Chris Wilson (2020-05-22 23:00:10)
> Quoting Lisovskiy, Stanislav (2020-05-21 10:35:42)
> > Seems to be unrelated issue. There seems to be some list corruption 
> > happening in drm fb manipulation code.
> > if those patches would be causing that (like some severe mem corruption)- 
> > it would happen much more broadly than single test and single platform. 
> > Moreover there is no direct  connection to the changes.
> 
> The fi-glk-dsi failure in module reload is a result of this series.
> Somehow you have angered the i915 pm around snd_hda_intel.
> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/fi-glk-dsi/igt@i915_pm_...@module-reload.html

CI says "drm/i915: Adjust CDCLK accordingly to our DBuf bw needs" is the
culprit.
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev18)

2020-05-22 Thread Chris Wilson 
Quoting Lisovskiy, Stanislav (2020-05-21 10:35:42)
> Seems to be unrelated issue. There seems to be some list corruption happening 
> in drm fb manipulation code.
> if those patches would be causing that (like some severe mem corruption)- it 
> would happen much more broadly than single test and single platform. Moreover 
> there is no direct  connection to the changes.

The fi-glk-dsi failure in module reload is a result of this series.
Somehow you have angered the i915 pm around snd_hda_intel.
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/fi-glk-dsi/igt@i915_pm_...@module-reload.html
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev18)

2020-05-21 Thread Vudum, Lakshminarayana 
Stan, I have addressed the issue and re-reported.

-Original Message-
From: Lisovskiy, Stanislav  
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 12:36 PM
To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Vudum, Lakshminarayana 

Subject: Re: ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating 
CDCLK (rev18)

Seems to be unrelated issue. There seems to be some list corruption happening 
in drm fb manipulation code.
if those patches would be causing that (like some severe mem corruption)- it 
would happen much more broadly than single test and single platform. Moreover 
there is no direct  connection to the changes.


Best Regards,

Lisovskiy Stanislav

Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo


From: Patchwork 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:55:27 AM
To: Lisovskiy, Stanislav
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating 
CDCLK (rev18)

== Series Details ==

Series: Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev18)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/74739/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8511_full -> Patchwork_17733_full 


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_17733_full absolutely need to be
  verified manually.

  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_17733_full, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.



Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_17733_full:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@kms_cursor_legacy@cursorb-vs-flipa-toggle:
- shard-glk:  [PASS][1] -> [DMESG-FAIL][2]
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-glk1/igt@kms_cursor_leg...@cursorb-vs-flipa-toggle.html
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-glk1/igt@kms_cursor_leg...@cursorb-vs-flipa-toggle.html


 Suppressed 

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

  * {igt@kms_flip@plain-flip-fb-recreate-interruptible@c-hdmi-a2}:
- shard-glk:  [PASS][3] -> [DMESG-WARN][4]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-glk9/igt@kms_flip@plain-flip-fb-recreate-interrupti...@c-hdmi-a2.html
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-glk7/igt@kms_flip@plain-flip-fb-recreate-interrupti...@c-hdmi-a2.html


Known issues


  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_17733_full that come from known 
issues:

### IGT changes ###

 Issues hit 

  * igt@gem_ctx_persistence@engines-hostile@bcs0:
- shard-iclb: [PASS][5] -> [FAIL][6] ([i915#1622])
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-iclb3/igt@gem_ctx_persistence@engines-host...@bcs0.html
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-iclb2/igt@gem_ctx_persistence@engines-host...@bcs0.html

  * igt@gem_softpin@noreloc-s3:
- shard-apl:  [PASS][7] -> [DMESG-WARN][8] ([i915#180]) +1 similar 
issue
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-apl7/igt@gem_soft...@noreloc-s3.html
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-apl4/igt@gem_soft...@noreloc-s3.html
- shard-kbl:  [PASS][9] -> [DMESG-WARN][10] ([i915#180]) +1 similar 
issue
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-kbl7/igt@gem_soft...@noreloc-s3.html
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-kbl2/igt@gem_soft...@noreloc-s3.html

  * igt@gem_workarounds@suspend-resume-fd:
- shard-kbl:  [PASS][11] -> [INCOMPLETE][12] ([i915#155])
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-kbl7/igt@gem_workarou...@suspend-resume-fd.html
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-kbl2/igt@gem_workarou...@suspend-resume-fd.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@execlists:
- shard-skl:  [PASS][13] -> [INCOMPLETE][14] ([i915#1874])
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-skl2/igt@i915_selftest@l...@execlists.html
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-skl5/igt@i915_selftest@l...@execlists.html

  * igt@kms_big_fb@x-tiled-64bpp-rotate-0:
- shard-glk:  [PASS][15] -> [FAIL][16] ([i915#1119] / [i915#118] / 
[i915#95])
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-glk6/igt@kms_big...@x-tiled-64bpp-rotate-0.html
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-glk8/igt@kms_big...@x-tiled-64bpp-rotate-0.html

  *

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev18)

2020-05-21 Thread Lisovskiy, Stanislav 
Seems to be unrelated issue. There seems to be some list corruption happening 
in drm fb manipulation code.
if those patches would be causing that (like some severe mem corruption)- it 
would happen much more broadly than single test and single platform. Moreover 
there is no direct  connection to the changes.


Best Regards,

Lisovskiy Stanislav

Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo


From: Patchwork 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:55:27 AM
To: Lisovskiy, Stanislav
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating 
CDCLK (rev18)

== Series Details ==

Series: Consider DBuf bandwidth when calculating CDCLK (rev18)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/74739/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8511_full -> Patchwork_17733_full


Summary
---

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_17733_full absolutely need to be
  verified manually.

  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_17733_full, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.



Possible new issues
---

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
Patchwork_17733_full:

### IGT changes ###

 Possible regressions 

  * igt@kms_cursor_legacy@cursorb-vs-flipa-toggle:
- shard-glk:  [PASS][1] -> [DMESG-FAIL][2]
   [1]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-glk1/igt@kms_cursor_leg...@cursorb-vs-flipa-toggle.html
   [2]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-glk1/igt@kms_cursor_leg...@cursorb-vs-flipa-toggle.html


 Suppressed 

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

  * {igt@kms_flip@plain-flip-fb-recreate-interruptible@c-hdmi-a2}:
- shard-glk:  [PASS][3] -> [DMESG-WARN][4]
   [3]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-glk9/igt@kms_flip@plain-flip-fb-recreate-interrupti...@c-hdmi-a2.html
   [4]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-glk7/igt@kms_flip@plain-flip-fb-recreate-interrupti...@c-hdmi-a2.html


Known issues


  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_17733_full that come from known 
issues:

### IGT changes ###

 Issues hit 

  * igt@gem_ctx_persistence@engines-hostile@bcs0:
- shard-iclb: [PASS][5] -> [FAIL][6] ([i915#1622])
   [5]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-iclb3/igt@gem_ctx_persistence@engines-host...@bcs0.html
   [6]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-iclb2/igt@gem_ctx_persistence@engines-host...@bcs0.html

  * igt@gem_softpin@noreloc-s3:
- shard-apl:  [PASS][7] -> [DMESG-WARN][8] ([i915#180]) +1 similar 
issue
   [7]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-apl7/igt@gem_soft...@noreloc-s3.html
   [8]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-apl4/igt@gem_soft...@noreloc-s3.html
- shard-kbl:  [PASS][9] -> [DMESG-WARN][10] ([i915#180]) +1 similar 
issue
   [9]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-kbl7/igt@gem_soft...@noreloc-s3.html
   [10]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-kbl2/igt@gem_soft...@noreloc-s3.html

  * igt@gem_workarounds@suspend-resume-fd:
- shard-kbl:  [PASS][11] -> [INCOMPLETE][12] ([i915#155])
   [11]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-kbl7/igt@gem_workarou...@suspend-resume-fd.html
   [12]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-kbl2/igt@gem_workarou...@suspend-resume-fd.html

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@execlists:
- shard-skl:  [PASS][13] -> [INCOMPLETE][14] ([i915#1874])
   [13]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-skl2/igt@i915_selftest@l...@execlists.html
   [14]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-skl5/igt@i915_selftest@l...@execlists.html

  * igt@kms_big_fb@x-tiled-64bpp-rotate-0:
- shard-glk:  [PASS][15] -> [FAIL][16] ([i915#1119] / [i915#118] / 
[i915#95])
   [15]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-glk6/igt@kms_big...@x-tiled-64bpp-rotate-0.html
   [16]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17733/shard-glk8/igt@kms_big...@x-tiled-64bpp-rotate-0.html

  * igt@kms_cursor_crc@pipe-a-cursor-128x128-rapid-movement:
- shard-snb:  [PASS][17] -> [SKIP][18] ([fdo#109271]) +1 similar 
issue
   [17]: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8511/shard-snb4/igt@kms_cursor_...@pipe-a-cursor-128x128-rapid-movement.html
   [18]: