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

Ao Qi aoqi at loongson.cn
Sun Feb 3 17:20:55 UTC 2019 

Hi,

Bob Vandette and David Holmes have reviewed. Could someone help to sponsor?

Thanks,
Ao Qi

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 6:52 PM Ao Qi <aoqi at loongson.cn> wrote:
>
> 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