[11] RTM tests fail

Christian Thalinger cthalinger at twitter.com
Fri Aug 31 08:44:54 UTC 2018 


> On Aug 30, 2018, at 6:51 PM, Christian Thalinger <cthalinger at twitter.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 30, 2018, at 12:27 AM, Gustavo Romero <gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com <mailto:gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Götz, Christian,
>> 
>> Cristian, I don't know how easy it's to trigger an ad hoc test on your system to
>> test the RTM suite against a Graal JVM, but I'm wondering if you could kindly test
>> a fix for JDK-8209972:
>> 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/misc/8209972_GRAAL_dont_run_RTM_tests_with_Graal.patch <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/misc/8209972_GRAAL_dont_run_RTM_tests_with_Graal.patch>
> 
> Yes, that’s pretty easy. I’ll do it tomorrow and get back to you.

Yep, works:

01:43:50 Summary: hotspot_compiler
01:43:50 TEST STATS: name=hotspot_compiler  run=774  pass=774  fail=0

> 
>> 
>> 
>> Götz, I've tried to fix that in vm.rtm.cpu property but it got cumbersome around
>> TestUseRTMLockingOptionOnUnsupportedCPU.java. There, vm.rtm.cpu would be false
>> for Graal JVM and so the test runs and expects some failure message from the JVM
>> regarding unsupported CPU or OS, however the problem is rather that the compiler
>> itself doesn't support RTM. I could adapt that test but tweaking it locally
>> seems odd to me. Also I think that the other tests (*Unsupported*.java) are
>> irrelevant when the selected compiler does not support RTM (please see the commit
>> message where I try to explain it with other words). What do you think?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Gustavo
>> 
>> On 08/29/2018 10:52 AM, Gustavo Romero wrote:
>>> Hi Christian,
>>> A quick question:
>>> What's the way you recommend to run the compiler/rtm tests with Graal JVM?
>>> I'm using something like that but I would like know if there is a better way to
>>> do that. I don't want to run all the tests, only the RTM ones, so I would like
>>> to avoid 'make hostpot-*':
>>> JT_JAVA=/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64  /home/gromero/jtreg/bin/jtreg -javaoption:-XX:+UnlockExperimentalVMOptions -javaoption:-XX:+EnableJVMCI -javaoption:-XX:+UseJVMCICompiler -v1 -conc:6 -jdk:./build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/jdk/ ./test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/rtm
>>> Vladimir, thanks for filing JDK-8209972.
>>> Thanks.
>>> Regards,
>>> Gustavo
>>> On 08/24/2018 10:53 AM, Gustavo Romero wrote:
>>>> 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 <mailto:gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com>>
>>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:04
>>>>>> To: Christian Thalinger <cthalinger at twitter.com <mailto:cthalinger at twitter.com>>; Lindenmaier, Goetz
>>>>>> <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com <mailto:goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>>
>>>>>> Cc: hotspot compiler <hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net <mailto: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 <mailto:cthalinger at twitter.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 2018, at 5:02 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz
>>>>>> <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com <mailto: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 <mailto:cthalinger at twitter.com>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Montag, 20. August 2018 14:55
>>>>>>>>>> To: Gustavo Romero <gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com <mailto:gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com <mailto:goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>>; hotspot
>>>>>> compiler
>>>>>>>>>> <hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
>>>>>> <mailto: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>
>>>>>> <mailto: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 <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
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/attachments/20180831/0bd37b17/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev mailing list