[11] RTM tests fail

[Lindenmaier, Goetz]

Hi Gustavo, 

> If it's possible would that be the best solution in this case?
Yes, I think so.  It's the most local place to change this. 

But maybe VMProps works fine, too. Then this is the better place. 
I just don't know whether all tests properly check that.

In general, I think such information should go into the 
test suite, not into the testee... kind of strange to adapt a testee
so that tests pass.  There should be a single point in the test suite 
where it is listed which VM configuration supports which features.
For a while such things were added to Platform.java, but now 
there is VMProps ... and there are base classes in the test sub-suites
that try to do this ... 
Some tests then again check for the platform themselves.

But basically I thought the CPU feature string is there to
report about the actual CPU we are running on, not to 
tell what the VM exploits of these features.

Best regards,
  Goetz.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gustavo Romero <gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:04
> To: Christian Thalinger <cthalinger at twitter.com>; Lindenmaier, Goetz
> <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>
> Cc: hotspot compiler <hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: Re: [11] RTM tests fail
> 
> Hi Christian, Goetz,
> 
> On 08/21/2018 08:02 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 20, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Christian Thalinger <cthalinger at twitter.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 5:02 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz
> <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> I think it would make more sense to add this in VMProps.java when
> >>> vm.rtm.cpu is evaluated.
> >>> Or to adapt the CPU feature string not to report rtm.  While I think
> >>> this is crude, I have seen (and then also done) this before.
> >>>
> >>> Adding !vm.graal.enabled to each test will require changing this
> >>> in all tests when, e.g., RTM support is implemented in graal x86, but
> >>> not in graal ppc …
> >>
> >> Good point regarding different architectures.
> >
> > Anyone want to pick this up? :-)
> 
> Yes, I can, although not promptly. Is it ok to wait a week or so?
> 
> Also it's been quite some time that I don't check the Graal code...
> 
> Goetz, would it be reasonable to handle this at the JVM side? For instance,
> would it be possible (and correct) to keep separate RTM feature status for
> JVM + Hotspot and for JVM + Graal for each architecture so for a given arch it
> would be possible to advertise "rtm" for JVM + Hotspot but not for JVM +
> Graal?
> 
> If it's possible would that be the best solution in this case?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Bbest regards,
> Gustavo
> 
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Goetz.
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Christian Thalinger <cthalinger at twitter.com>
> >>>> Sent: Montag, 20. August 2018 14:55
> >>>> To: Gustavo Romero <gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>> Cc: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; hotspot
> compiler
> >>>> <hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [11] RTM tests fail
> >>>>
> >>>> Quick additional question: Graal does not implement RTM (as far as I
> know)
> >>>> but the tests are always run and I don’t see a:
> >>>>
> >>>> @requires !vm.graal.enabled
> >>>>
> >>>> in the test files.  Should we add that?
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Gustavo Romero
> >>>> <gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Christian,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 07/11/2018 11:10 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2018, at 11:23 AM, Gustavo Romero
> >>>> <gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Christian,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 06/29/2018 12:16 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2018, at 5:32 PM, Gustavo Romero
> >>>> <gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com
> <mailto:gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Christian,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 06/25/2018 09:54 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Gustavo Romero
> >>>> <gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com
> <mailto:gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 06/25/2018 09:46 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you check with or without these fixes?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Without, unfortunately.  Are all of the failures fixed now (in
> jdk-
> >>>> 11+19)?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know, our machines do not have RTM, only our
> Power
> >>>> ones do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But I think Gustavo Romero from IBM claimed so.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yup, after the three fixes Goetz mentioned all RTM tests must
> pass
> >>>> on Intel.
> >>>>>>>>>> Ok, I’ll get back to you…
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, please let me know if all went fine :)
> >>>>>>>> I did not forget but we can’t merge in jdk-11+19 because of
> >>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205616
> >>>>>>>> We have to wait until jdk-11+20 is tagged.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure!
> >>>>>> I’m happy to report that all RTM test failures are fixed.  Thanks!
> >>>>> Thanks for testing & confirming it. :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Gustavo
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >