RFR(XS): 8209029 ProblemList tests that fail due to 'Error attaching to process: Can't create thread_db agent!' in jdk-11+25 testing

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

On 8/6/18 8:39 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Reviewed.

Thanks!

Dan


>
> As discussed on IM the id#1 test is for ZGC and we don't support ZGC 
> on Solaris so no point excluding it. :)
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> PS. Yes I will file jtreg RFE.
>
> On 7/08/2018 10:14 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> On 8/6/18 7:46 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Dan,
>>>
>>> On 7/08/2018 6:53 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> I'm in the process of reducing the noise in the JDK11 and JDK12 CIs so
>>>> I need a single (R)eviewer for the following fix:
>>>>
>>>>    JDK-8209029 ProblemList tests that fail due to 'Error attaching to
>>>>                process: Can't create thread_db agent!' in jdk-11+25 
>>>> testing
>>>>    https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209029
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is the third sub-task for ProblemListing test failures due
>>>> to this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the diff:
>>>>
>>>> $ hg diff
>>>> diff -r f3e15dcdc333 test/hotspot/jtreg/ProblemList.txt
>>>> --- a/test/hotspot/jtreg/ProblemList.txt    Mon Aug 06 00:46:40 
>>>> 2018 -0700
>>>> +++ b/test/hotspot/jtreg/ProblemList.txt    Mon Aug 06 16:28:16 
>>>> 2018 -0400
>>>> @@ -85,8 +85,10 @@
>>>>
>>>>   serviceability/sa/ClhsdbAttach.java 8193639 solaris
>>>>   serviceability/sa/ClhsdbCDSCore.java 8207832 linux-x64
>>>> +serviceability/sa/ClhsdbCDSJstackPrintAll.java 8193639 solaris
>>>>   serviceability/sa/ClhsdbField.java 8193639 solaris
>>>>   serviceability/sa/ClhsdbFindPC.java 8193639 solaris
>>>> +serviceability/sa/ClhsdbFlags.java 8193639 solaris
>>>>   serviceability/sa/ClhsdbInspect.java 8193639 solaris
>>>>   serviceability/sa/ClhsdbJdis.java 8193639 solaris
>>>>   serviceability/sa/ClhsdbJhisto.java 8193639 solaris
>>>> @@ -113,9 +115,13 @@
>>>>   serviceability/sa/TestDefaultMethods.java 8193639 solaris
>>>>   serviceability/sa/TestG1HeapRegion.java 8193639 solaris
>>>>   serviceability/sa/TestHeapDumpForInvokeDynamic.java 8193639 solaris
>>>> +serviceability/sa/TestHeapDumpForLargeArray.java 8193639 solaris
>>>> +serviceability/sa/TestInstanceKlassSizeForInterface.java 8193639 
>>>> solaris
>>>> +serviceability/sa/TestIntConstant.java 8193639 solaris
>>>> +serviceability/sa/TestJhsdbJstackLock.java 8193639 solaris
>>>>   serviceability/sa/TestRevPtrsForInvokeDynamic.java 8191270 
>>>> generic-all
>>>>   serviceability/sa/TestType.java 8193639 solaris
>>>> -serviceability/sa/TestUniverse.java 8193639 solaris
>>>> +serviceability/sa/TestUniverse.java#id0 8193639 solaris
>>>>
>>>>   ############################################################################# 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The entry for serviceability/sa/TestUniverse.java did not prevent
>>>> that test from running so I'm adding the '#id0' part of the name
>>>> that shows up in JTREG output about the failure. The source file
>>>> is called 'serviceability/sa/TestUniverse.java' which is why that
>>>> name was used in the previous version of the entry.
>>>
>>> I chatted to Jon Gibbons about this. We should file a RFE to allow 
>>> all the test cases in a "multi-test" to be excluded together.
>>
>> I presume that you or Jon are going to file that RFE...
>>
>>
>>> But, given the difference between #id0 and #id1 is whether ZGC is 
>>> used or not, I would not expect the ZGC case to pass more often than 
>>> the non-ZGC case. So it seems to me you will want to exclude both 
>>> sub-tests here.
>>
>> Our current plan with CI noise reduction is that we only ProblemList a
>> test when we have observed a failure. These groups of failures have
>> begun to stretch our patience since we are now on our 3rd ProblemList
>> update for JDK-8193639...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Also the comments at the top of the file indicate that my previous
>>>> entries should have been 'solaris-all' instead of just 'solaris' so
>>>> I'll make that change before I push.
>>>
>>> Right.
>>
>> So may I count this as a review?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any questions, comments or suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>