Re: [PATCH] drm/ci: add kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo to apq8016 flakes

[Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>]

Hi Vignesh

On 12/11/2024 9:10 PM, Vignesh Raman wrote:
> Hi Abhinav / Helen,
> 
> On 12/12/24 01:48, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>> Hi Helen / Vignesh
>>
>> On 12/4/2024 12:33 PM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 16:21:26 -0300 Abhinav Kumar  wrote ---
>>>
>>>   > Hi Helen
>>>   >
>>>   > On 12/4/2024 11:14 AM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote:
>>>   > > Hi Abhinav,
>>>   > >
>>>   > > Thanks for your patch.
>>>   > >
>>>   > >
>>>   > >
>>>   > > ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 15:55:17 -0300 Abhinav Kumar  wrote ---
>>>   > >
>>>   > >   > From the jobs [1] and [2] of pipeline [3], its clear that
>>>   > >   > kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo is most certainly a flake and
>>>   > >   > not a fail for apq8016. Mark the test accordingly to match 
>>> the results.
>>>   > >   >
>>>   > >   > [1] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481
> 
> The test passes - kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo,UnexpectedImprovement(Pass)
> 

Yes, thats the problem

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481/viewer#L2696

24-12-04 03:51:55 R SERIAL> [  179.241309] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: 
finished subtest all-pipes, SUCCESS
24-12-04 03:51:55 R SERIAL> [  179.241812] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: 
finished subtest torture-bo, SUCCESS

Here it passes whereas it was marked a failure. Hence pipeline fails.

>>>   > >   > [2] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430
> 
> There are no test failures
> 

No, thats not true

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430/viewer#L2694

24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [  170.379649] Console: switching to colour 
dummy device 80x25
24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [  170.379938] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: 
executing
24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [  170.393868] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: 
starting subtest torture-bo
24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [  170.394186] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: 
starting dynamic subtest pipe-A
24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [  170.661749] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: 
finished subtest pipe-A, FAIL
24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [  170.662060] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: 
starting dynamic subtest all-pipes
24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [  170.713237] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: 
finished subtest all-pipes, FAIL
24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [  170.713513] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: 
finished subtest torture-bo, FAIL
24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [  170.721263] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: 
exiting, ret=98
24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [  170.737857] Console: switching to colour 
frame buffer device 128x48

Please check these logs, the torture-bo test-case did fail. The pipeline 
was marked pass because it was an expected fail.

So we have two pipelines, where one failed and the other passed. So 
thats a flake for me.

>>>   > >   > [3]: 
>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/pipelines/1322770
> 
> The job is same as 2
> 
> In this case, the test passes and deqp-runner does not report it as 
> flake. So we only need to remove it from fails file.
> 

No, like I mentioned above we have a pass and a fail.

> 
>>>   > >   >
>>>   > >   > Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>
>>>   > >   > ---
>>>   > >   >  drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt | 5 +++++
>>>   > >   >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>   > >   >
>>>   > >   > diff --git 
>>> a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt 
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt
>>>   > >   > new file mode 100644
>>>   > >   > index 000000000000..18639853f18f
>>>   > >   > --- /dev/null
>>>   > >   > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt
>>>   > >   > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
>>>   > >   > +# Board Name: msm-apq8016-db410c
>>>   > >   > +# Failure Rate: 100
>>>   > >
>>>   > > Is failure rate is 100%, isn't it a fail than?
>>>   > > (I know we have other cases with Failure Rate: 100, maybe we 
>>> should fix them as well)
>>>   > >
>>>   >
>>>   > Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "Failure rate" for a flake.
>>>   >
>>>   > I interpreted this as this test being flaky 100% of the time :)
>>>
>>> Ah right, I see, inside deqp-runner (that auto-retries).
>>>
>>> I'd like to hear Vignesh's opinion on this.
>>>
>>> (In any case, we probably should document this better)
> 
> deqp-runner reports new (not present in flakes file) or known (present 
> in flakes file) flakes
> 
> 2024-12-11 07:25:44.709666: Some new flakes found:
> 2024-12-11 07:25:44.709676:   kms_lease@page-flip-implicit-plane
> 
> 2024-12-11 13:15:16.482890: Some known flakes found:
> 2024-12-11 13:15:16.482898: 
> kms_async_flips@async-flip-with-page-flip-events-atomic
> 
> we add it to flakes file if deqp runner reports new flakes. Another case 
> where we update flake tests is when a test passes in one run but fails 
> in another, but deqp-runner does not report it as flake.
> 
> Regards,
> Vignesh
> 

The confusion here i guess is about what to mention as a "Failure rate"

Failure rate means how many times it fails (like normally) ? In that 
case 100% which I used is wrong and I used 33% instead for which I have 
pushed v2.

>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Helen
>>>
>>
>> Can you let me know which way we need to go?
>>
>> Just in case I did post a v2 fixing this, 
>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/627276/
>>
>> If thats the way to go, can you pls take a look?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Abhinav
>>>   >
>>>   > Out of the 3 runs of the test, it passed 2/3 times and failed 1/3.
>>>   >
>>>   > So its fail % actually is 33.33% in that case.
>>>   >
>>>   > I think I saw a Failure rate of 100% on msm-sm8350-hdk-flakes.txt 
>>> and
>>>   > mistook that as the rate at which flakes are seen.
>>>   >
>>>   > Let me fix this up as 33%
>>>   >
>>>   > > Regards,
>>>   > > Helen
>>>   > >
>>>   > >   > +# IGT Version: 1.28-ga73311079
>>>   > >   > +# Linux Version: 6.12.0-rc2
>>>   > >   > +kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo
>>>   > >   >
>>>   > >   > ---
>>>   > >   > base-commit: 798bb342e0416d846cf67f4725a3428f39bfb96b
>>>   > >   > change-id: 20241204-cursor_tor_skip-9d128dd62c4f
>>>   > >   >
>>>   > >   > Best regards,
>>>   > >   > --
>>>   > >   > Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>
>>>   > >   >
>>>   > >   >
>>>   > >
>>>   >
>>>