RFR(xs): 8161552: Test issue: VM init failed: GC triggered before VM initialization completed. Try increasing NewSize, current value 768K.

[Dmitry Fazunenko]

Thomas,

On 21.07.2016 14:17, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 13:34 +0300, Dmitry Fazunenko wrote:
>> Thomas,
>>
>> On 21.07.2016 12:30, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 20:01 +0300, Dmitry Fazunenko wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking for a couple of reviewers for a simple fix of two
>>>> tests.
>>>> The tests check some basic assertions when VM is started with max
>>>> heap
>>>> size set to some small values.
>>>> The tests work almost everywhere, but there are cases when  with
>>>> -Xmx2M
>>>> GC triggered before VM initialization completed.
>>>> 2M is valid but extremely small max heap size. Cases of usages
>>>> such
>>>> small heap are rather theoretical than practical.
>>>>
>>>> To fix the problem I made the tests weaker, the cases setting max
>>>> heap
>>>> to 2M are removed.
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfazunen/8161552/webrev.00/
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161552
>>>>
>>>> Testing: locally + RBT
>>>     looks good, but I think this decision should be more prominently
>>> stated in the test.
>>>
>>> Particularly the comments in lines 45-47 need to be updated, and
>>> lines
>>> 49 to 53 also refer to now apparently outdated behavior.
>> Thanks for catching this, I missed that comments.
>>
>> Updated version:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfazunen/8161552/webrev.01/
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfazunen/8161552/webrev.00vs01/
>>
>   - line 37 contradicts with the new line 54 now. It's probably best to
> only remove the "(2m)" in line 37.
fixed.
>
>   - I would also prefer if the comment were as neutral as possible, i.e.
>   please remove the "rather strange" adjective in line 48.
agree, fixed.
>   - not sure what a "positive check" is (compared to what?), but just
> saying "Therefore we start the VM with 4M heap." would be fine.

Oh, it was my fault. I mixed this test up with another one, which 
comprises both positive and negative checks.
Fixed as you suggested.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfazunen/8161552/webrev.02/
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfazunen/8161552/webrev.01vs02/

Thanks a lot for verifying me.

-- Dima

>
> Thanks,
>    Thomas
>