RFR 8078555(M): GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
sangheon.kim at oracle.com
Fri Aug 28 22:23:37 UTC 2015
Thank you for the kind explanation!
For me adding these tags would be better as these will reduce testing time.
Kim, may I ask your opinion?
On 08/28/2015 01:41 PM, Derek White wrote:
> Hi Sangheon, Kim,
> On 8/28/15 1:27 PM, sangheon.kim wrote:
>> Hi Kim,
>> On 08/28/2015 09:50 AM, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>> On Aug 28, 2015, at 2:44 AM, sangheon.kim <sangheon.kim at oracle.com>
>>>> 1. @requires vm.gc==xx for 4 test cases. (Derek)
>>> Is this actually needed? I'm not sure how the process builder works.
>>> Does it use any options from the calling process?
> This is an FYI - not a stopper.
> The main issue is that there's a disconnect between the jtreg
> framework, including the @requires mechanism, and most tests that use
> Adding "@requires vm.gc=" doesn't totally fix the problem, but it ties
> the two together. If you don't do @requires, then this situation can
> Due to jtreg argument roulette in nightlies, jtreg will run
> TestObjectTenuringFlags (which is a parallel-only test), while perhaps
> specifying |-XX:+UseG1GC and/or ||-||/XX/:+UseConcMarkSweepGC|to the
> outer level test. But there's no point running the outer test
> framework four ways (default, g1, cms, and parallel) when the real
> inner test always gets run with parallel GC. You just ran the same
> test 4 times. This is not directly harmful, but it's unnecessary and
> makes jtreg nightly runs longer.
> It's also indirectly harmful because when a failure occurs it's very
> easy for bug triage or the initial bug handler to get confused and
> think it's a G1 or CMS bug (because that's at the top-level of the
> error report says). Yes, this has happened to me!
>> If you are asking about any options are passed via @run tag, NO these
>> 4 tests don't use them.
>> @run main/othervm -XX:xxxxx
>> I added them as ProcessTools.createJavaProcessBuilder() takes
>> specific GC mode options.
>> Maybe I am misunderstanding the tag.
>> Anyone can give clear advice for this? Derek?
>>> If not, then I
>>> don't think these new @requires are needed.
>>> Hm, I see lots of G1 tests that use the process builder and don't have
>>> @requires lines, which argues this block of changes is not needed.
> And if all the other tests jumped off a bridge would you do it too?
> :-) In short, I don't think the change is strictly necessary, but I
> think it's a good idea that we should start using in all of our
> GC-specific tests that go through ProcessTools.
> I'm fine with or without this change. Maybe I should bring it up in
> the SQE talk at the offsite to get consensus.
> - Derek
More information about the hotspot-dev