RFR(xs): 8080925: Make error log write timeout parameter configurable

[David Holmes]

Hi Thomas,

On 25/06/2015 2:01 AM, Christian Tornqvist wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I'm concerned with the time measurement. We run a lot of our tests concurrently on a wide spread of hardware, I wouldn't be surprised if it sometimes took more than 4s to get the JVM to a state where the ErrorHandlerTests are invoked.

I share Christian's concern, particularly as you start measuring before 
even exec'ing the new JVM:

   70     long t1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
   71
   72     OutputAnalyzer output_detail = new OutputAnalyzer(pb.start());

There's really no reliable way to validate a timeout using an external 
observer: you either have so much leeway that you won't spot an 
unexpected delay; or too little such that some platforms/devices don't 
make it. The framework timeout will at least detect if the underlying VM 
execution fails to terminate at all.

Sorry I don't have any better suggestions for testing this.

David
-----


> Thanks,
> Christian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hotspot-runtime-dev [mailto:hotspot-runtime-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Coleen Phillimore
> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 11:45 AM
> To: hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFR(xs): 8080925: Make error log write timeout parameter configurable
>
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> This change looks okay, I guess.  I've been avoiding tests that crash the JVM because I don't know if this will mess up test execution in any
> way.   Also I guess I don't see any other way to add the test without a
> command line parameter, like TestSafeFetchInErrorHandler , but I feel
> like we're swamped in command line parameters!   But you just got rid of
> one that was broken, so I guess this is fine.
>
> I can sponsor your change if someone from our SQE group okays the test.
>
> Thanks,
> Coleen
>
> On 6/24/15 11:30 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This change is in review limbo since a month...
>>
>> Could I have a second reviewer, please, and a sponsor?
>>
>> Or, if the change is not wanted, a reason why?
>>
>> Thanks a lot,
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Thomas Stüfe
>> <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> may I have a second review for this tiny change? I also need a sponsor.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Thomas Stüfe
>>> <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Staffan,
>>>>
>>>> thanks!
>>>>
>>>> ...Thomas
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Staffan Larsen <
>>>> staffan.larsen at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looks good to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> A small nit in globals.hpp:925: "an timeout” -> “a timeout”. No
>>>>> need for a new webrev if you fix this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> /Staffan
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 maj 2015, at 13:33, Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> please review this small change:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8080925/webrev.00/webre
>>>>>> v/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8080925
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a small addition which makes the timeout to write error
>>>>>> log
>>>>> files
>>>>>> configurable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks & Kind Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>
>