RFR(S): 8146096: [TEST BUG] compiler/loopopts/UseCountedLoopSafepoints.java Timeouts

[Andreas Eriksson]

Vladimir Kozlov and Vladimir Ivanov,

Ok, I'll look into using the whitebox api to fix the test.
Thanks for looking at this.

- Andreas

On 2016-01-19 21:46, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Simple use timeout to check for generated safepoint is bad idea. It is 
> very inaccurate. At least you need to check call stack to see if it 
> stopped in compiled method.
> I would prefer to see WB new interface which would check that loop 
> SafePointNode is generated during compilation of method. It will be 
> precise.
>
> And we need such tests to make sure a feature is working - we can't 
> remove them.
>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
> On 1/19/16 4:50 AM, Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
>> As an idea to improve the test: spawn a thread which executes the 
>> counted loop and then use WhiteBox.forceSafepoint() to
>> trigger a safepoint.
>>
>> If the test times out, it means there's no safepoint in the loop.
>>
>> Also, it also simplifies the implementation - no need to spawn a 
>> child process, the check can be done in-process.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Vladimir Ivanov
>>
>> On 1/19/16 3:32 PM, Andreas Eriksson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Can I please have a review for the removal of
>>> hotspot/test/compiler/loopopts/UseCountedLoopSafepoints.java.
>>>
>>> The test needs to do a loop that takes more than two seconds to execute
>>> fully without doing a safepointing call. For this expensive atomic
>>> operations were used. The problem is that on certain embedded platforms
>>> they are too expensive, and the test times out.
>>> The loop length could probably be reduced, and it should still work on
>>> faster machines. However, the test is not very useful, so I think it's
>>> better to just remove it to avoid future problems.
>>>
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8146096
>>> Test to be removed:
>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot/file/d84a55e7aaf8/test/compiler/loopopts/UseCountedLoopSafepoints.java 
>>>
>>>
>>> (I can create a webrev if you think it necessary.)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andreas