[11] RTM tests fail

[Gustavo Romero]

Hi Goetz,

On 08/24/2018 04:44 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> 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.

Sure, that makes total sense. So much that the CPU feature string is
determined very early in the JVM creation.

Thanks.

Best regards,
Gustavo  

> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>