RFR (S) 7901022: JMH runners should provide explicit timeout setting

[Aleksey Shipilev]

Thanks!

Current code does not treat the case (runtime > timeout) in any specific
manner. You will get the interrupt right in the middle of the run. I can
think up the case when you actually want that to test the interrupt
mechanics, so current code seems to be what we want it to be. Thoughts?

-Aleksey.

On 09/10/2014 06:50 PM, Sergey Kuksenko wrote:
> Checked with one eye (you need yet another eye :))
> Looks fine, except: What are you going to do if iteration time is larger
> than timeout?
> 
> 
> On 09/10/2014 06:30 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need a second pair of eyes to look through the patch:
>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/7901022/webrev.01/
>>
>> Please take a look. It removes the current "timeout" scheme that guesses
>> the timeout based on -r/measurementTime settings, and instead does the
>> explicit -to/timeout setting to control how much we wait. It also does
>> the waiting properly in multi-threaded workloads: do not wait for an
>> entire time, but only for the remaining part of it.
>>
>> Context:
>>    https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/CODETOOLS-7901022
>>   
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jmh-dev/2014-September/001369.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Aleksey.
>>
>