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

Ao Qi aoqi at loongson.cn
Fri Feb 1 10:52:57 UTC 2019 

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:58 AM David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Reviewed.
>

Thanks, David.

> I assume you also need a sponsor?

Yes :)

>
> 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