RFR: 8332596: Shenandoah: Make TestAllocIntArrays.java#[iu-]aggressive and TestAllocObjectArrays.java#[iu-]aggressive more robustness [v3]

[William Kemper]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:32:23 GMT, SendaoYan <syan at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Hi all,
>> The OOM failure seems a JVM bug, not a test bug. Testcase run OOM on Neoverse-N1 and Neoverse-N2, run pass on Kunpeng-920. It seems that, if the cpu work quickly, there testcases failed; if the cpu work slowly, there testcases passed.
>> There 4 testcase run OOM:
>> gc/shenandoah/TestAllocObjectArrays.java#aggressive
>> gc/shenandoah/TestAllocObjectArrays.java#iu-aggressive
>> gc/shenandoah/TestAllocIntArrays.java#aggressive
>> gc/shenandoah/TestAllocIntArrays.java#iu-aggressive
>> 
>> 
>> Before the OOM issue was investigated,  There two methods to avoid the OOM failures, maybe the 2rd method more reasonable.
>> 
>> 1. Problemlist these OOM testcases scenarios.
>> 2. Use larger ShenandoahNoProgressThreshold and/or a smaller ShenandoahCriticalFreeThreshold to avoid the OOM failures.
>> 
>> In this PR, I choose the 2rd method. And I split `#aggressive` `#iu-aggressive` two parts as `os.arch!="aarch64"` and `os.arch=="aarch64"` separately, as show below:
>> 
>> `#aggressive` split to `#aggressive` and `#aggressive-aarch64`
>> `#iu-aggressive` split to `#iu-aggressive` and `#iu-aggressive-aarch64`
>> 
>> The change has been verified locally, no risk.
>
> SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with three additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Use larger ShenandoahNoProgressThreshold and/or a smaller ShenandoahCriticalFreeThreshold to avoid the OOM failures
>  - Merge branch 'jbs8332596' of github.com:sendaoYan/jdk-ysd into jbs8332596
>  - 8332596: Shenandoah: problemlist TestAllocIntArrays.java#aggressive and TestAllocObjectArrays.java#aggressive
>    
>    Signed-off-by: sendaoYan <yansendao.ysd at alibaba-inc.com>

We are actively working on addressing this test failure: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8336490
We are also removing the incremental update mode altogether: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8336685

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19322#issuecomment-2248537424