RFR (XS): Run SPECjbb in headless mode in JPRT

[David Holmes]

On 1/06/2012 11:02 AM, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>
> Unless there are veto:s - can somebody help me sponsor the change?

No veto power here :)

If you create the changeset and export the patch I can apply it for you 
- to hotspot-rt I presume. Send me an email with the patch or a path 
thereto.

I'll wait till tomorrow to submit to give time for any "veto" :)

Cheers,
David

> Thanks,
> Mikael
>
> On 2012-05-30 06:16, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> Personally, I'm finding it amazing that such a simple change to
>> a JPRT config file is generating so many e-mails... I've seen
>> complicated code float right on by with nary a whisper of a
>> comment and yet this thread gets so many...
>>
>> "Amazing!" - Professor Bunsen Jude the Science Dude
>>
>> Dan - not enough coffee yet... :-)
>>
>> On 5/30/12 1:43 AM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>>> I agree that it should be the exception, but it should be allowed. I
>>> find it especially appropriate when the fix a is small (typically a
>>> one-liner) and when it may look out of place in the code and could
>>> use a little explanation.
>>>
>>> /Staffan
>>>
>>> On 30 maj 2012, at 09:32, David Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/05/2012 5:12 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>>>>> The changes look good.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in favor of having bug ids in the code. As Mikael says, it
>>>>> makes it much easier to find and understand the background of a
>>>>> fix. If you later change the code so that the fix isn't valid
>>>>> anymore, then the comment should of course be updated.
>>>> That is not maintainable in general. You cannot annotate every line
>>>> of code with the bug fixes that have affected it (well you can but
>>>> the way to do that is through the sccs not comments! - and you need
>>>> the sccs to see the full changeset to understand the complete fix).
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes reference to a bug id is appropriate in a comment, but
>>>> this should be the exception not the norm.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> /Staffan
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30 maj 2012, at 05:39, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/29/12 8:11 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/05/2012 10:48 AM, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2012-05-29 15:24, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> We usually don't add Bug ID into code change. I think the comment
>>>>>>>>> could be general: "Prevent popups during testing".
>>>>>>>> There are many references to bug IDs in HotSpot and I'd argue
>>>>>>>> that it's
>>>>>>>> extremely useful to have a link to the bug in the actual source
>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>> since that allows me to more easily find more information about
>>>>>>>> why the
>>>>>>>> fix was made, along with the potential discussion in the bug
>>>>>>>> tracker.
>>>>>>> As this is a specific workaround (that might be removed in the
>>>>>>> future?) I think tagging it with the bug id is ok.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, historical baggage notwithstanding, generally we do not want
>>>>>>> to associate bug ids with code changes. It should be
>>>>>>> the exception not the norm.
>>>>>> Totally agree. We have 'hg log' and other tools if you want to see
>>>>>> bug ID associated with changes. And I think it is not workaround
>>>>>> but a fix which will stay. Why you want to enable popups for batch
>>>>>> jobs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with bug IDs in a code is the code could be changed
>>>>>> later for an other bug so the comment will be not correct unless
>>>>>> you start to list all bugs IDs which is not realistic and wrong.
>>>>>> Or you will remove bug ID later, then why to have it at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have some Bug ID and comments which say "the next change is
>>>>>> done until such bug is fixed". But even such case should be the
>>>>>> exception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mentioning the actual bug and the reason for doing the fix in the
>>>>>>>> comment also serves as a warning for others that may feel
>>>>>>>> tempted to
>>>>>>>> remove the line going forward.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it's ok with you I'd prefer to keep the comment the way it is?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Mikael
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> New webrev below. The list of targets now matches the linux
>>>>>>>>>> x64 list
>>>>>>>>>> (apart from the platform name that is).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/7155453/webrev.02/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can I get a couple of Reviews and a sponsor?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Mikael
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2012-05-23 17:27, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean missing "comma and backslash"?:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ${jprt.my.macosx.x64}-{product|fastdebug}-c2-GCOld_ParOldGC, \
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> After addressing the missing backslash it now passes through
>>>>>>>>>>>> JPRT
>>>>>>>>>>>> (on all platforms).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikael
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2012-05-22 17:20, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you run it through JPRT testing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the review. I updated based on your feedback.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This new webrev also re-enables the JBB testing on OSX:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/7155453/webrev.01
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikael
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2012-05-22 13:24, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/12 2:16 PM, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to get a couple of reviews of this change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've seen problems with intermittent and hard to debug
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popups
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when running SPECjbb on lights out OSX machines. To
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popups from blocking the completion of the tests this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes SPECjbb run in headless mode in JPRT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/7155453/webrev.00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thumbs up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make/jprt.properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "popup:s" -> "popups"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The comment kind of implies that this is a MacOS X only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it isn't. Maybe add one more line:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> # but the work-around is added to all platforms to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>