[9] RFR (L): 8059623: JEP-JDK-8043304: Test task: command line options tests

[Filipp Zhinkin]

Hi all,

please take a look at updated tests.
This time an issue with server JVMs that don't support tiered compilation was 
resolved.

incremental diff: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fzhinkin/8059623/webrev.02.inc/
new webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fzhinkin/8059623/webrev.02/
testing: JPRT & local (using server embedded JVM which does not support tiered 
comp).

This change is also depends on https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068183.

Thanks,
Filipp.

On 12/23/2014 11:37 AM, Filipp Zhinkin wrote:
> Thank you, Christian!
>
> Regards,
> Filipp.
>
> On 12/22/2014 09:01 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>> Yes, looks good.
>>
>>> On Dec 22, 2014, at 7:06 AM, Filipp Zhinkin <filipp.zhinkin at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Christian, are you ok with the latest fix version?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Filipp.
>>>
>>> On 12/19/2014 02:33 PM, Filipp Zhinkin wrote:
>>>> Christian, thank you for review!
>>>>
>>>> I've updated tests to reflect WhiteBox movement to top-level repo,
>>>> added previously missed @bug tag and fixed few small issues:
>>>>
>>>> incremental diff:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fzhinkin/8059623/webrev.01.inc/
>>>>
>>>> updated webrev:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fzhinkin/8059623/webrev.01/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Filipp.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2014 02:19 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>>>> Looks good.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 10, 2014, at 4:39 AM, Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Filipp,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10.12.2014 13:21, Filipp Zhinkin wrote:
>>>>>>> Tobias,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as I wrote you in a private message, until a fix for 8064940 doesn't affect
>>>>>>> the way options are processed there is no need to update proposed tests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've filed 8067135 for new tests that will verify actual alignment of 
>>>>>>> code heaps.
>>>>>> Okay, sounds good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Tobias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Filipp.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/08/2014 06:18 PM, Filipp Zhinkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/08/2014 06:12 PM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 08.12.2014 13:25, Filipp Zhinkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tobias,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thank you for suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I think we should take code heap size alignment into account.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What alignment policy you're going to implement for 8064940?
>>>>>>>>> My current fix just large-page-aligns the code heap sizes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe instead of checking that values are in
>>>>>>>>>> (value - page_size, value + page_size) interval we should just check
>>>>>>>>>> that all values were aligned up to page_size?
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's a better solution. However, I don't know how to figure out 
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> available page sizes from Java code.
>>>>>>>> There's Unsafe::pageSize() method. Also, I saw a RFR on hs-rt list
>>>>>>>> about to add such method to WB API, but it need to check how well
>>>>>>>> it is going to work with large pages.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Filipp.
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Tobias
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Filipp.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/08/2014 12:37 PM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Filipp,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the actual size of a code heap is affected by alignment and 
>>>>>>>>>>> therefore may be
>>>>>>>>>>> different to the size set via the command line. For example, on 
>>>>>>>>>>> Sparc we
>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>> make sure that the code heaps are large page (4MB) aligned to reduce 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>>>>>> of ITLB misses (will be introduced with [1]).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should check if the actual size of the code heap is within
>>>>>>>>>>> boundaries,
>>>>>>>>>>> i.e., within the specified size +- (large) page size.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Tobias
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8064940
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 05.12.2014 18:06, Filipp Zhinkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> please take a look at CLI tests for segmented code cache 
>>>>>>>>>>>> (JDK-8059623).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are three new tests:
>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler/codecache/cli/
>>>>>>>>>>>>     codeheapsize/TestCodeHeapSizeOptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>     printcodecache/TestPrintCodeCacheOption
>>>>>>>>>>>>     TestSegmentedCodeCacheOption
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All tests consist of several test cases aimed to verify different 
>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>>>>>>>> of options' processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> These tests partially overlapped with c/c/CheckSegmentedCodeCache 
>>>>>>>>>>>> test,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but add additional value - these tests actually check final values
>>>>>>>>>>>> of tested options and verifies PrintCodeCache output.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bug id: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8059623
>>>>>>>>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fzhinkin/8059623/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>>>> Testing: manual & automated
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This change depends on:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8054892: Improve 
>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler's CLI
>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>> error reporting
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8066440: Various changes in
>>>>>>>>>>>> testlibrary
>>>>>>>>>>>> for JDK-8059613
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> Filipp.
>