nvbug 6602863: system_event_set_wait fails on events: resize() on non-owning SystemEventData_v1._data view - #2690
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…-owning SystemEventData_v1._data view
mdboom
added
bug
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
juenglin
approved these changes
Aug 24, 2026
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A non-owned Numpy array can not be resized, so we have to replace it with a view instead when we truncate it. (No copy needs to be performed).
Though this comes from the generator, it is actually in hand-written code.
See the nvbug for further details.
This is stubbornly difficult to write a unit test for. The only system events we can use to test with are BIND/UNBIND. We could unbind and bind a GPU in another process to generate these events, but that requires
sudoand an extra idle GPU lying around (which it certainly isn't in the middle of running the tests). I have tested this locally and SWQA can repeat for us again. This is just a lesson to move away from hand-written wrapper code so that we can test it (it's easy to test generated code against "mock" API calls -- much harder with our hand-written code at the moment).