RFR(XS): [TEST] add test to verify EnableTrace works

Liu, Xin xxinliu at amazon.com
Wed Sep 12 16:42:15 UTC 2018


David, 
Thank you to let us know that. Excellent. 
I still need another reviewer. Paul said he can't be reviewer because he sponsors this change.   

Thanks,
--lx


On 9/11/18, 6:32 PM, "David Holmes" <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:

    FYI I also hacked JPRT to run this test, so I can confirm it passes as 
    expected on Oracle JDK on Solaris, Windows and Linux.
    
    Cheers,
    David
    
    On 11/09/2018 11:50 AM, David Holmes wrote:
    > Looks fine now.
    > 
    > FWIW didn't need a new webrev just to remove othervm.
    > 
    > Thanks,
    > David
    > 
    > On 11/09/2018 4:57 AM, Hohensee, Paul wrote:
    >> Copied, http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~phh/8209863/webrev.03/
    >>
    >> On 9/10/18, 10:51 AM, "hotspot-runtime-dev on behalf of Hohensee, 
    >> Paul" <hotspot-runtime-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net on behalf of 
    >> hohensee at amazon.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>      Because I copied it to the wrong directory! :(
    >>      Paul
    >>      On 9/10/18, 9:55 AM, "hotspot-runtime-dev on behalf of Daniel D. 
    >> Daugherty" <hotspot-runtime-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net on behalf of 
    >> daniel.daugherty at oracle.com> wrote:
    >>          Why is this webrev using '8206075' when previous webrev used 
    >> '8209863'?
    >>          Dan
    >>          On 9/10/18 12:47 PM, Liu, Xin wrote:
    >>          > You are right. I updated it. othervm doesn't help much. I 
    >> remove it.
    >>          >   Here is CR.
    >>          > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~phh/8206075/webrev.03/
    >>          >
    >>          > thanks,
    >>          > --lx
    >>          >
    >>          >
    >>          > On 9/7/18, 4:08 PM, "David Holmes" 
    >> <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
    >>          >
    >>          >      On 8/09/2018 2:40 AM, Liu, Xin wrote:
    >>          >      > Hi, David,
    >>          >      > Thanks you for the commend.
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      > I added 'othervm' in last minute. The test grabs 
    >> Classload or Compilation events when JVM initializes. Without 
    >> `othervm`, the test might not capture them because the JVM has already 
    >> did that.
    >>          >      > 'othervm' can make the test more consistent.
    >>          >
    >>          >      No it won't because you are capturing events from JVMs 
    >> that you
    >>          >      explicitly launch with ProcessTools. The VM launched 
    >> by "othervm" does
    >>          >      not have EnableTracing applied to it and nobody looks 
    >> at its output anyway.
    >>          >
    >>          >      David
    >>          >
    >>          >      > Thanks you for reviewing it.
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      > Thanks,
    >>          >      > --lx
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      > On 9/6/18, 5:17 PM, "David Holmes" 
    >> <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      >      Hi,
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      >      On 7/09/2018 6:51 AM, Liu, Xin wrote:
    >>          >      >      > Hi, David,
    >>          >      >      > Could you review this new revision?
    >>          >      >      > Webrev: 
    >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~phh/8209863/webrev.02/
    >>          >      >      > bug: 
    >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209863
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      >      This looks fine to me.
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      >      One nit:
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      >      29  * @run main/othervm
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      >      You don't need othervm for this test as it just 
    >> launches seperate VMs
    >>          >      >      anyway. No need for updated webrev.
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      >      Thanks,
    >>          >      >      David
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      >      > I should verify new tests using both 
    >> Openjdk/Oraclejdk. Thank you for heading up.
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >      > Thanks,
    >>          >      >      > --lx
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >      > On 9/4/18, 11:05 PM, "Liu Xin" 
    >> <navy.xliu at gmail.com> wrote:
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      Hi, David,
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      Thanks to investigate the closed 
    >> implementation.
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      Indeed, OracleJDK shows “JAVA(TM)” 
    >> instead of OpenJDK.
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      $java -XX:+EnableTracing -version
    >>          >      >      >      java version "1.8.0_171"
    >>          >      >      >      Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 
    >> 1.8.0_171-b11)
    >>          >      >      >      Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 
    >> 25.171-b11, mixed mode)
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      I will add a guard for the Test.  
    >> Furthermore, I think I need to check if it exits with 0 for OracleJDK.
    >>          >      >      >      The right behavior of OracleJDK8 is to 
    >> accept this flag yet suppress all events.
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      Thanks,
    >>          >      >      >      —lx
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      > On Sep 4, 2018, at 9:51 PM, David 
    >> Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
    >>          >      >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      > Hi Liu Xin,
    >>          >      >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      > On 4/09/2018 7:45 PM, David Holmes wrote:
    >>          >      >      >      >> On 4/09/2018 10:12 AM, Liu, Xin wrote:
    >>          >      >      >      >>> Hi, David,
    >>          >      >      >      >>> Thank you for reviewing it.
    >>          >      >      >      >>>
    >>          >      >      >      >>> If you are using OracleJDK, it won't 
    >> have any output. OracleJDK doesn't suffer from crash. I guess It 
    >> suppress events unconditionally.
    >>          >      >      >      >>> For JDK8u, "-XX:+EnableTracing 
    >> -version" will dump some events.  It won't crash if it has this patch 
    >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/hotspot/rev/80ee2541504e
    >>          >      >      >      >>> The attachment is the output.
    >>          >      >      >      >> If the Oracle JDK doesn't produce any 
    >> output then this test will fail on the Oracle JDK so can't be accepted 
    >> in current form.
    >>          >      >      >      >> There's something going on with 
    >> EnableTracing that I'm not understanding. I'll try to take a closer 
    >> look tomorrow ( was on a day off today).
    >>          >      >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      > Okay ... the Oracle JDK replaces the 
    >> OpenJDK tracing facility with JFR which completely ignores the 
    >> EnableTracing flag.
    >>          >      >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      > If the test is simply verifying that 
    >> -XX:+EnableTracing doesn't crash then it can reduce to just:
    >>          >      >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      > /*
    >>          >      >      >      > * @test
    >>          >      >      >      > * @summary Ensure -XX:+EnableTracing 
    >> doesn't crash
    >>          >      >      >      > * @run main/othervm -XX:+EnableTracing 
    >> TestEnableTracing
    >>          >      >      >      > */
    >>          >      >      >      > public class TestEnableTracing {
    >>          >      >      >      >    public static void main(String[] 
    >> args) {
    >>          >      >      >      >    }
    >>          >      >      >      > }
    >>          >      >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      > If you want to actually verify some of 
    >> the trace output then you will need to guard the shouldMatch/Contain 
    >> statements with something like:
    >>          >      >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      > if 
    >> (output.getOutput().contains("OpenJDK")) {
    >>          >      >      >      > ...
    >>          >      >      >      > }
    >>          >      >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      > I don't think there is a direct way to 
    >> ensure the test is only executed on an OpenJDK binary.
    >>          >      >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      > Thanks,
    >>          >      >      >      > David
    >>          >      >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >      >> Thanks,
    >>          >      >      >      >> David
    >>          >      >      >      >>>
    >>          >      >      >      >>> Output of jtreg
    >>          >      >      >      >>> ###
    >>          >      >      >      >>> # Running suite single for openJDK
    >>          >      >      >      >>> # Results are available in 
    >> build/brazil-open-single-tests
    >>          >      >      >      >>> ###
    >>          >      >      >      >>> Directory "build/JTwork" not found: 
    >> creating
    >>          >      >      >      >>> Passed: 
    >> runtime/EnableTracing/TestEnableTracing.java
    >>          >      >      >      >>> Test results: passed: 1
    >>          >      >      >      >>> Report written to 
    >> /local/home/xxinliu/ws-openjdk8/build/OpenJDK8CompatibilityTests/OpenJDK8CompatibilityTests-1.0/RHEL5_64/DEV.STD.PTHREAD/build/brazil-open-single-tests/html/report.html 
    >>
    >>          >      >      >      >>> Results written to 
    >> /local/home/xxinliu/ws-openjdk8/build/OpenJDK8CompatibilityTests/OpenJDK8CompatibilityTests-1.0/RHEL5_64/DEV.STD.PTHREAD/build/JTwork 
    >>
    >>          >      >      >      >>>
    >>          >      >      >      >>> Thanks,
    >>          >      >      >      >>> --lx
    >>          >      >      >      >>>
    >>          >      >      >      >>>
    >>          >      >      >      >>> On 9/2/18, 10:01 PM, "David Holmes" 
    >> <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
    >>          >      >      >      >>>
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      Hi,
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      On 25/08/2018 2:35 AM, Liu, Xin 
    >> wrote:
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      > Hi, hotspot-Runtime Developers,
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      >
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      > Could you review this small 
    >> tests?
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      > It adds a new test to verify 
    >> +EnableTracing works for jdk8u.
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      I don't see any output produced 
    >> with just "-XX:+EnableTracing -version". ??
    >>          >      >      >      >>>        >
    >>          >      >      >      >>>     
    >> /java/re/jdk/8u172/promoted/latest/binaries/linux-amd64/fastdebug/bin/java 
    >>
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      -XX:+EnableTracing -version
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      java version "1.8.0_172-fastdebug"
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment 
    >> (build 1.8.0_172-fastdebug-b35)
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server 
    >> VM (build 25.172-b35-fastdebug, mixed mode)
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      Thanks,
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      David
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      > BUG:  
    >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209863
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      > WEBREV: 
    >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~phh/8209863/webrev.00/
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      >
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      > Thanks,
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      > -lx
    >>          >      >      >      >>>      >
    >>          >      >      >      >>>
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >      >
    >>          >      >
    >>          >      >
    >>          >
    >>          >
    >>
    



More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list