RFR: 8062537: [TESTBUG] Conflicting GC combinations in hotspot tests
bengt.rutisson at oracle.com
Thu Oct 30 21:09:11 UTC 2014
On 10/30/14 3:05 PM, Evgeniya Stepanova wrote:
> Please review changes for 8062537, the OpenJDK/hotspot part of the
> JDK-8019361 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8019361>
> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8062537
> fix: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~eistepan/8062537/webrev.00/
> Problem: Some tests explicitly set GC and fail when jtreg set another GC.
> Solution: Such tests marked with the jtreg tag "requires" to skip test
> if there is a conflict
Thanks for fixing this! It is really great that we finally start sorting
First a general comment. The @requires tag has been developed without
much cooperation with the GC team. We did have a lot of feedback when it
was first presented a year ago, but it does not seem like this feedback
was incorporated into the @requires that was eventually built.
I think this change that gets proposed now is a big step forward and I
won't object to it. But I am pretty convinced that we will soon run in
to the limitations of the current @requires implementation and we will
have to redo this work.
Some of the points I don't really like about the @requires tag are:
- the "vm.gc" abstraction is more limiting than helping. It would have
been better to just "require" any command line flag.
- the requirement should be per @run tag. Right now we have to do what
you did in this change and use vm.gc=null even when some tests could
actually have been run when a GC was specified.
- there are many tests that require more than just a specific GC. Often
there are other flags that can't be changed either for the test to work
Maybe this is not the right place to discuss the current implementation
of the @requires tag. I just want to say that I'm not too happy about
how the @requires tag turned out. But assuming we have to use it the way
it is now I guess the proposed changeset looks good.
> Tested locally with different GC flags (-XX:+UseG1GC,
> -XX:+UseParallelGC, -XX:+UseSerialGC, -XX:+UseConcMarkSweep and
> without any GC flag). Tests are being excluded as expected. No tests
> failed because of the conflict.
Have you tested with -Xconcgc too? It's an alias for
I think some of the test, like
test/gc/startup_warnings/TestDefNewCMS.java, will fail if you run with
-XX:+UseParNewGC. Others, like
test/gc/startup_warnings/TestParNewCMS.java, will fail if you run with
-XX:-UseParNewGC. Could you test these two cases too?
Similarly it looks to me like there are tests that will fail if you run
them with -XX:-UseParallelOldGC or -XX:+UseParallelOldGC.
Just a heads up. These two tests will soon be removed. I'm about to push
a changeset that removes them:
Is there some way of making sure that all tests are run at one time or
another. With this change there is a risk that some tests are never run
and always skipped. Will we somehow be tracking what gets skipped and
make sure that all tests are at least run once with the correct GC so
that it is not skipped all the time?
> Evgeniya Stepanova
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the hotspot-gc-dev