[RFR] 8016752: Test case for 8005857/8016740 (assert in GC_locker from PSOldGen::expand with -XX:+PrintGCDetails and Verbose)

[Dmitry Fazunenko]

Hi Andrey,

I think it's too early to rely on '~=' in @requires.  There is no 
guarantee that it will be supported. (I hope it will).

You also need to add @requires and list GC the test will work with.

Thanks,
Dima


On 12.11.2014 14:59, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
> Hi, team
> As this test requires fastdebug build, here is update according to 
> latest changes to jtreg (@requires tag).
> Also I've suggested patch to jtreg for support matching against regexp 
> patterns in @requires expressions (like "foo bar" ~= ".*bar") *(its 
> blocker for original tesbug now)
>
> webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~azakharov/8016752/webrev.02/
>
> testbug:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8016752
>
> Thanks.
>
> On 10.11.2014 14:36, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>> Hi, Thomas
>> Yes, its fails very stable on 7u40b31
>> #  Internal Error 
>> (/HUDSON/workspace/jdk7u40-2-build-linux-amd64-product/jdk7u40/hotspot/src/share/vm/memory/gcLocker.hpp:94), 
>> pid=15099, tid=139928946063104
>> #  assert(_needs_gc || SafepointSynchronize::is_at_safepoint()) 
>> failed: only read at safepoint
>>
>> with elapsed time (seconds): 1.273
>> on local linux x64 box.
>> And passed on b32.
>>
>> Also, there are batches in comments of bugs for builds before fix and 
>> with fix.
>>
>>
>> On 04.11.2014 13:55, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>>> Hi Andrey,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 12:29 +0400, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>> Hi, team.
>>>> Here is simple test for JVM don't crash when its with PSOldGen, low
>>>> memory and with -XX:+PrintGCDetails and -XX:+Verbose flags
>>>> (https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8016740) based on Crasher
>>>> attached to original incident bug
>>>>
>>>> webrev:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~azakharov/8016752/webrev/
>>> The test looks okay, but did you check that if you revert JDK-8016740,
>>> the test actually fails?
>>> The original reproducer was stressing the GC a lot more as it tried to
>>> cause crashes for 60 seconds.
>>>
>>> If that is the case, it looks okay to me.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>    Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>
>