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

David Holmes david.holmes at oracle.com
Fri Feb 1 03:58:54 UTC 2019 

Reviewed.

I assume you also need a sponsor?

Thanks,
David

On 1/02/2019 11:56 am, Ao Qi wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>

More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev mailing list