RFR: 8360641: TestCompilerCounts fails after 8354727

[Damon Fenacci]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:09:23 GMT, Manuel Hässig <mhaessig at openjdk.org> wrote:

> After integrating #25872 the calculation of the`CICompilerCount` ergonomic became dependent on the size of `NonNMethodCodeHeapSize`, which itself is an ergonomic based on the available memory. Thus, depending on the system, the test `compiler/arguments/TestCompilerCounts.java` failed, i.e. locally this failed, but not on CI servers.
> 
> This PR changes the test to reflect the changes introduced in #25872.
> 
> Testing:
>  - [ ] [Github Actions](https://github.com/mhaessig/jdk/actions/runs/15932906313)
>  - [ ] tier1,tier2 plus Oracle internal testing

Thanks a lot for fixing this @mhaessig!
I left a couple of inline comments and just noticed you might want to add the copyright note as well 🙂

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/arguments/TestCompilerCounts.java line 138:

> 136:             // Non-tiered modes
> 137:             int c1OnlyCount = heuristicCount(cpus, Compilation.C1Only);
> 138:             pass(c1OnlyCount, opt, "-XX:TieredStopAtLevel=1", "-XX:NonNMethodCodeHeapSize="+NonNMethodCodeHeapSize, "-XX:CodeCacheMinimumUseSpace="+CodeCacheMinimumUseSpace);

Very minor style thing:  maybe we can put whitespaces around the `+` signs.

test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/arguments/TestCompilerCounts.java line 164:

> 162: 
> 163:     // Buffer sizes for caclulating the maximum number of compiler threads.
> 164:     static final int NonNMethodCodeHeapSize = 5 * 1024 * 1024;

Is the `NonNMethodCodeHeapSize` value chosen "on purpose"?

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26024#pullrequestreview-2970074252
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26024#discussion_r2174335731
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26024#discussion_r2174345082