[TESTBUG] runtime/containers/docker/TestCPUAwareness.java failed in docker not supporting --cpus
Ao Qi
aoqi at loongson.cn
Mon Feb 4 03:46:14 UTC 2019
Hi Bob,
I added reviewer information:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8217597/webrev.03/
I used hg export, so I create all the information needed to push into
jdk/jdk according to my understanding. If there is something wrong
about these info, it's ok to adjust. Thanks, Bob.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:24 AM Bob Vandette <bob.vandette at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Sure. Can you send me a patch ready to hg import and I’ll submit for you.
>
> Bob.
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 2019, at 12:20 PM, Ao Qi <aoqi at loongson.cn> wrote:
> >
> > 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