JDK 8 b118 ea test results are now available

Balchandra Vaidya balchandra.vaidya at oracle.com
Thu Dec 12 04:11:00 PST 2013

On 12/11/13 07:50 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Balchandra,
> Thanks for posting the commands. That gives us something to reason about.
> For my part, I have found -conc:auto to be too generous.   "auto" gets 
> evaluated to the number of processors on the host system as seen by 
> the Java runtime.  In my usage (on langtools) I have found a good rule 
> of thumb to be half that number, so on a 32-way system, I use 
> -conc:16, etc.    It is also a function of available memory.
> I played with the idea of supporting expressions using auto, such as 
> -conc:auto/2 or -conc:auto-1 -- but then I came to my senses. This 
> calculation is much better done in the environment used to run jtreg.
> I notice in your commands, you do NOT limit the amount of memory for 
> each JVM with -Xmx.  That leaves all your JVMs using default 
> ergonomics, which may be unduly optimistic when you have lots of JVMs 
> running.
> As a general rule for anyone using -conc to run tests concurrently, I 
> strongly recommend that the first few times you do this, use your 
> system activity profiling tool to monitor CPU and memory usage.    If 
> all your CPUs are redlining it at 100%, or if you start memory 
> swapping, then your concurrency number is too high.  I would recommend 
> that you target an average CPU utilization just below 100%, and no 
> memory swapping.

It is a good information.

First, I usually run tests on 4 way and 8 way systems. I believe the
objective here is to provide repeatable test results. But, the
hardware availability, OS versions, kernel, patches, window manager,
jtreg options, and many other factors play a role to produce
consistent test results.  The truth is we may not able to produce
results using all combinations, but the results posted can reasonably
be used for a comparison. That is, the result posted is not

Is it fair to say something like "The test results posted here used
-conc:2 -Xmx:512m .....  options. Result could vary if other options
were used. However, the community members are encouraged
to send email to quality-discuss or file bugs if any issues found". If
a testcase pass with -conc:2 but fail with -conc:4 means there
might be a bug in the testcase - such failures are good to know.

Second point is to make test execution easier. Does it make sense
to add default options (concurrency, memory etc.) to jtreg?  Or does
it make sense to create a separate environment files (similar to
what is used in JCK) and read those files in jtreg or other wrapper
script?  However, I also think that are such micro tuning necessary?
Testing different combinations may find bugs which is beneficial to

> A couple more comments inline.
> -- Jon
> P.S.   I'll see about converting some of these notes and guidelines 
> into another jtreg page on OpenJDK.
> -- Jon
> On 12/11/2013 11:26 AM, Balchandra Vaidya wrote:
>> On 11/12/2013 17:55, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>> Balchandra,
>>> The important part of that of interest here is the part about "calls 
>>> jtreg commands
>>> (one each for jdk, langtools and hotspot) with those recommended
>>> options".
>>> Is there a way you could post here the segment of the script that 
>>> does that?
>> Here it is
>> 2.1 Running tests in jdk/test
>> $ jtreg -dir:{openjdk source top directory}/jdk/test -verbose:summary 
>> -exclude:{openjdk source top directory}/jdk/test/ProblemList.txt 
>> -conc:auto -a -ignore:quiet -timeoutFactor:5 -othervm 
>> -testjdk:{location of the test jdk} `cat dir.list 
>> <http://download.java.net/jdk8/testresults/docs/dir.list>`
>> 2.2 Running tests in langtools/test
>> $ jtreg -dir:{openjdk source top directory}/langtools/test 
>> -verbose:summary -conc:auto -a -ignore:quiet -timeoutFactor:5 
>> -agentvm -testjdk:{location of the test jdk} com tools
>> 2.3 Running tests in hotspot/test
>> $ jtreg -dir:{openjdk source top directory}/hotspot/test 
>> -verbose:summary -conc:auto -a -ignore:quiet -timeoutFactor:5 
>> -agentvm -testjdk:{location of the test jdk} compiler gc runtime 
>> sanity serviceability
>> The instructions is at 
>> http://download.java.net/jdk8/testresults/docs/howtoruntests.html
>> and is linked from 
>> http://www.java.net/download/jdk8/testresults/testresults.html
>> The caveat in this approach is a human error where one (me) forget to 
>> update the instruction
>> or forget to remove any additional flags used in the script 
>> temporarily - a mismatch
>> of the results could occur.
>> From the next build (b120), I am going to update "2.1 Running tests 
>> in jdk/test" to
>> $ jtreg -dir:{openjdk source top directory}/jdk/test -verbose:summary 
>> -exclude:{openjdk source top directory}/jdk/test/ProblemList.txt 
>> -conc:auto -a -ignore:quiet -timeoutFactor:5 -agentvm 
>> -testjdk:{location of the test jdk} :jdk_core :jdk_svc :jdk_beans 
>> :jdk_imageio :jdk_sound :jdk_sctp javax/accessibility 
>> com/sun/java/swing javax/print sun/pisces com/sun/awt
> Generally, I would say that if you need to put a list of groups on the 
> command line, you need to update the groups file to create a new group 
> that is composed of the individual groups you want to run.
> I think it would be good to have a group such as :jdk_default or 
> something like that.

Yes, it is a good idea.

>>> Alternatively, that segment of the script could be a candidate for a 
>>> target in
>>> one or more test/Makefile files.
>> This is good idea, but my experience with the 'make' is that if one 
>> target critically fail, all
>> subsequent targets will not run. I thought it is a restriction of 'make'.
> Well, ...
> a)  "make -k" keeps on going
> b)  as a user of the Makefile, you should be looking for a single 
> target, such as "make test", and it is up to the implementation of the 
> target to run all the tests, even though some might fail. There are 
> various ways to do this: for example, you can prefix a make rule with 
> "-" to ignore the exit code from a command, or you can do a composite 
> command like
>     jtreg <opts> || echo some jtreg tests failed

I will try again. I remember "make -k" didn't work from start to end. That
was an year ago, so I will retry.   Is it time to say goodbye to 'make' 
and say
hello to 'ant/gradle'  for jdk9 ?


>> Thanks
>> Balchandra
>>> -- Jon

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/quality-discuss/attachments/20131212/9ace11a2/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the quality-discuss mailing list