[TESTBUG] runtime/containers/docker/TestCPUAwareness.java failed in docker not supporting --cpus

Fri Feb 1 01:56:35 UTC 2019

Thanks, Bob. You help a lot.

Could someone help to review this small change?

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:30 AM Bob Vandette <bob.vandette at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> I’m not a “R” reviewer but I’m ok with your change.
>
> Bob.
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 2019, at 11:00 AM, Ao Qi <aoqi at loongson.cn> wrote:
> >
> > I leave the change, and update copyright year:
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8217597/webrev.02/ Could you help to
> > review this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ao Qi
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:08 PM Bob Vandette <bob.vandette at oracle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, that does provide a bit more unique testing so leave the change as you had it.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Bob.
> >>
> >>> On Jan 28, 2019, at 8:41 PM, Ao Qi <aoqi at loongson.cn> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Bob,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks! I am not a containers expert and have one small question. The
> >>> maximum amount of --cpus is 4 (equivalent to both setting —cpu-period
> >>> and —cpu-quota) in the already existing test. Is it valuable to keep
> >>> testCpus(i, i) according to the max num of available CPUs? If not, I
> >>> would also prefer removing the lines. In addition, I think I forgot to
> >>> update the copyright year, it will be fixed in the next version of
> >>> wevrev.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:35 PM Bob Vandette <bob.vandette at oracle.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> There is already a test that verifies —cpu-period and —cpu-quota.
> >>>> I would just remove these lines.
> >>>>
> >>>> 62             // leave one CPU for system and tools, otherwise this test may be unstable
> >>>> 63             int maxNrOfAvailableCpus =  availableCPUs - 1;
> >>>> 64             for (int i=1; i < maxNrOfAvailableCpus; i = i * 2) {
> >>>> 65                 testCpus(i, i);
> >>>> 66             }
> >>>>
> >>>> 129     private static void testCpus(int valueToSet, int expectedTraceValue) throws Exception {
> >>>> 130         Common.logNewTestCase("test cpus: " + valueToSet);
> >>>> 131         DockerRunOptions opts = Common.newOpts(imageName)
> >>>> 132             .addDockerOpts("--cpus", "" + valueToSet);
> >>>> 133         Common.run(opts)
> >>>> 134             .shouldMatch("active_processor_count.*" + expectedTraceValue);
> >>>> 135     }
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 28, 2019, at 10:22 AM, Ao Qi <aoqi at loongson.cn> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Since —cpus is a shortcut for of setting both --cpu-period and
> >>>> --cpu-quota and the test is not intended to verify that docker works
> >>>> correctly, I did not check the docker version and just replaced
> >>>> setting --cpus with setting both --cpu-period and --cpu-quota. What do
> >>>> you think of this patch:
> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8217597/webrev.01/ ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Ao Qi
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:37 PM Bob Vandette <bob.vandette at oracle.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Since —cpus is just a shortcut for of setting both --cpu-period and --cpu-quota”, I’d
> >>>> be ok with removing this test.  The tests are intended to test the container/cgroup
> >>>> configuration detection logic and not to verify that docker works correctly.
> >>>>
> >>>> An alternate solution would be to add version detection to the Docker test check in
> >>>> DockerTestUtils.java .   We already exec “docker ps” to see if docker is available
> >>>> and enabled.
> >>>>
> >>>> % docker --version
> >>>> Docker version 17.03.1-ce, build 276fd32
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 22, 2019, at 10:19 PM, Ao Qi <aoqi at loongson.cn> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:55 AM David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 23/01/2019 11:58 am, Ao Qi wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi David,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 5:24 AM David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> cc'ing Bob as our containers expert ...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 23/01/2019 1:10 am, Ao Qi wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> --cpus is available in Docker 1.13 and higher [1], so
> >>>> runtime/containers/docker/TestCPUAwareness.java failed in docker which
> >>>> does not support --cpus.
> >>>>
> >>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/docker/webrev.00/
> >>>>
> >>>> This patch skips the test if --cpus is not supported. I tested
> >>>> runtime/containers/docker/TestCPUAwareness.java on a Fedora 25 (Docker
> >>>> version 1.12.6, build ae7d637/1.12.6, not supporting --cpus) and
> >>>> Ubuntu 16.04 (Docker version 17.03.2-ce, build f5ec1e2, supporting
> >>>> --cpus)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The patch causes the test to pass if launching Docker fails for any
> >>>> reason so that is not good.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I tested two versions of docker which does not support --cpus. Their
> >>>> exit values when using --cpus are 2 and 125, and outputs are:
> >>>>
> >>>> flag provided but not defined: --cpus
> >>>> See 'docker run --help'.
> >>>>
> >>>> and
> >>>>
> >>>> unknown flag: --cpus
> >>>> See 'docker run --help'.
> >>>>
> >>>> My initial thought was that the else condition of
> >>>> "output.getExitValue() == 0" should match the condition of "--cpus not
> >>>> supported". Firstly I used output.shouldMatch("docker run --help"),
> >>>> but I am not sure if all the docker version behaves this way when
> >>>> --cpus is not supported and "docker run --help" does not certainly
> >>>> indicate "--cpus not supported", so I removed the else condition.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we need to try and find a way to clearly identifyt eh failing
> >>>> condition. Is there are "docker --version" we coudl check?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I will do more research. Checking docker version may be one option,
> >>>> and checking whether one option is support by docker may be also one
> >>>> option. I will try them later, while waiting if there are some other
> >>>> opinions :)
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not sure if this is a testbug, so I did not file it on JBS. In
> >>>> fact, I am not quite sure what kind of issue can be filed on JBS. Is
> >>>> there any guidance document?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Any/all issues can be filed on JBS. You don't need to pre-classify as a
> >>>> testbug, simple create an issue that a test is failing under specific
> >>>> conditions. Whomever works on the bug will then determine whether it is
> >>>> a testbug or product issue or something else. (We don't seem to have any
> >>>> docs on using JBS ...)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What if the issue is not a bug or no body cares the issue? The issue
> >>>> will be open on JBS forever?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Possibly :) But each component team performs regular triage of the bugs
> >>>> that get filed and eventually things will be examined enough to see if
> >>>> they are indeed a bug, and if not they will be closed as not an issue.
> >>>> If a bug but low priority it may eventually get closed as "will not fix"
> >>>> just to keep the open bug count down.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I was a little afraid that filing issues that are not bugs or nobody
> >>>> cares would increase the workload of others and frustrate myself, so I
> >>>> was not sure what kind of issue should be filed. Now I basically
> >>>> clear, thanks David.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> David
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for your explanation, and I filed this issue on JBS:
> >>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217597
> >>>>
> >>>> In this case I'm not sure whether we require a docker version that
> >>>> supports --cpus, and the test should be skipped otherwise. Though
> >>>> ideally this would involve an explicit version check so we don't just
> >>>> pass if the docker process fails.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> David
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Ao Qi
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://docs.docker.com/config/containers/resource_constraints/#cpu
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>