[14]RFR: 8233453: MLVM deoptimize stress test timed out

[Igor Ignatyev]

Hi Rahul,

the fix sound reasonable to me.

Thanks,
Igor

> On Dec 6, 2019, at 6:20 AM, Rahul Raghavan <rahul.v.raghavan at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Please review the following fix changeset.
> 
> <webrev> - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rraghavan/8233453/webrev.00/
> 
> # https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8233453
> # test-[open/test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/vm/mlvm/meth/stress/compiler/deoptimize/Test.java] 
> 
> Issue is  intermittent timeout failures of the test;
> mostly with solaris-sparc and sometimes with windows-x64.
> 
> The proposed fix here is to increase the timeout factor for the test.
> [test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/vm/mlvm/meth/stress/compiler/deoptimize/Test.java]
> - * @run main/othervm
> + * @run main/othervm/timeout=300
> .......
> - * @run main/othervm
> + * @run main/othervm/timeout=300
> 
> For some timeout failure cases of the test run, logs got generated with extra thread dump info.
>  e.g.: one attached to JBS page -
>  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/secure/attachment/85805/Test_id0--JDK13.jtr
> But could not find any hint of blocking threads or deadlocks from the analysis of these thread dumps.
> Also instead it seems as if the timeout factor for the test is less
> and that test just need more time to execute.
> Got no failures with repeat test run after above proposed fix, also supports this.
> 
> 
> Also checking the comments, fix done for old -
> - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212028
> (Use run-test makefile framework for testing in Oracle's Mach5)
> - http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/28375a1de254
> Found that similar '/timeout=300' addition was done for some '../vmTestbase/vm/mlvm/..' tests.
> 
> 
> It seems the intermittent timeouts for the test started with jdk-13+17, with fix changeset of -
>  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221393
>  ResolvedMethodTable too small for StackWalking applications
> (could not get any timeout failure for the test with sources updated to jdk-13+16 or updated to changeset version just before 8221393 fix.)
> Opened a separate task - JDK-8235485 - to check if this slowdown is expected.
> 
> 
> Not getting any timeout failure, for repeat test run with above fix proposal.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Rahul