RFR: 8260555: Change the default TIMEOUT_FACTOR from 4 to 1 [v5]

[Alan Bateman]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 18:43:29 GMT, Albert Mingkun Yang <ayang at openjdk.org> wrote:

>>> @prrace the change maintains the same absolute timeout value for those tests. Before the default of 120 was multiplied by the timeoutFactor of 4 to given 480. Now the value 480 is multiplied by the timeoutFactor of 1 to give 480. And IIRC Leo only did that for tests that demonstrated a timeout with the new default settings (120*1). It is not practical for Leo to investigate every changed test to see if it could get away with a value between 120 and 480. The change just maintains the status quo. Test owners are free to investigate further if they think it worth fine tuning these values.
>> 
>> I don't agree.
>> If you are going to modify individual tests, you need to demonstrate what you did for that test is justified or don't do it.
>> 
>> I am also questioning whether such a time out was demonstrated for this test.
>> I've searched the entire history of CI jobs and I don't see where Leo had such a timeout of this test.
>> I can send you my query off-line so you can check it. Maybe it is incomplete.
>
>> or don't do it.
> 
> Adding `/timeout=480` is more or less don't do anything.
> 
> The default timeout (if omitting `/timeout=...`) is 120, so:
> 
> master: TIMEOUT_FACTOR=4 and /timeout=120 give you actual 480 timeout.
> patch:  TIMEOUT_FACTOR=1 and /timeout=480 give you the same timeout.

> If you are going to modify individual tests, you need to demonstrate what you did for that test is justified or don't do it.

There are several comments in this PR pointing out again and again that adding "/timeout=480" doesn't change anything with the new proposed default timeout and timeoutFactor. I was initially puzzled as to why these were being added to a lot of tests but I think Leo's runs with a timeoutFactor of 0.7 explains it. If the timeoutFactor is reduced then we risk timeouts from tests that are run close to the limit today. The method used to find these tests seems reasonable. So I think the approach is good and we should try to help him get this change integrated to avoid needing to keep it up to date while tests change in main line.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26749#discussion_r2296595504