RFR: 8334405: java/nio/channels/Selector/SelectWithConsumer.java#id0 failed in testWakeupDuringSelect

[Daniel Fuchs]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:54:09 GMT, Brian Burkhalter <bpb at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Replace differences of milliseconds vs. epoch to differences of nanoseconds per the JVM's high-resolution time source.

Using `System.nanoTime` instead of `System.currentTimeMillis` looks like the right thing to do. I suggested some formatting edits to make the big power of tens more readable.

Oh I see Alan's comment now - I agree that printing millis would be more readable too.

test/jdk/java/nio/channels/Selector/SelectWithConsumer.java line 315:

> 313:             long duration = System.nanoTime() - start;
> 314:             assertTrue(n == 0);
> 315:             assertTrue(duration > 500000000, "select took " + duration + " ns");

Suggestion:

            assertTrue(duration > 500_000_000L, "select took " + duration + " ns");

test/jdk/java/nio/channels/Selector/SelectWithConsumer.java line 339:

> 337:             long duration = System.nanoTime() - start;
> 338:             assertTrue(n == 0);
> 339:             assertTrue(duration < 5000000000L, "select took " + duration + " ns");

Suggestion:

            assertTrue(duration < 5000_000_000L, "select took " + duration + " ns");

test/jdk/java/nio/channels/Selector/SelectWithConsumer.java line 361:

> 359:             long duration = System.nanoTime() - start;
> 360:             assertTrue(n == 0);
> 361:             assertTrue(duration > 500000000L && duration < 10*1000000000L,

Suggestion:

            assertTrue(duration > 500_000_000L && duration < 10_000_000_000L,

test/jdk/java/nio/channels/Selector/SelectWithConsumer.java line 388:

> 386:             long duration = System.nanoTime() - start;
> 387:             assertTrue(n == 0);
> 388:             assertTrue(duration < 5000000000L, "select took " + duration + " ns");

Suggestion:

            assertTrue(duration < 5000_000_000L, "select took " + duration + " ns");

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20398#pullrequestreview-2209710555
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20398#issuecomment-2260137166
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20398#discussion_r1698237118
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20398#discussion_r1698241167
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20398#discussion_r1698241279
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20398#discussion_r1698242540