RFR 8208303: Track JNI failures and fail tests

[JC Beyler]

Hi Serguei,

Sounds good to me. If someone else could review it, I could add the
metadata to the webrev and, once testing (as you say) confirms nothing is
broken, we could push it in.

If someone is motivated, that would be awesome and much appreciated!
Jc

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:08 AM serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com <
serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hi Jc,
>
> This looks good to me especially because we discussed it a lot internally.
> The testing looks pretty good too.
> I submitted mach5 jobs for HepMonitor tests repeating 100 times and also
> normal tier1, tier2, hs-tier2-5.
> But it was not tested with the tiers 6 & 7 yet (most likely, need to make
> sure they run well too).
>
> Thanks,
> Serguei
>
>
> On 8/6/18 08:27, JC Beyler wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I updated the version and Serguei tested it for me so this change should
> not change the stability of the tests.  This has the advantage of not
> having to complicate the Java tests at all, while adding the post-JNI call
> checks.
>
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8208303/webrev.04/
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208303
>
> Thanks all for your reviews!
> Jc
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:36 PM JC Beyler <jcbeyler at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I did the new version that calls FatalError if JNI fails a call. This has
>> the advantage of not having to complicate the Java tests at all, while
>> adding the post-JNI call checks.
>>
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8208303/webrev.03/
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208303
>>
>> Thanks all!
>> Jc
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM Chris Plummer <chris.plummer at oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure changes that only affect tests can be any priority. But
>>> still, be a lot more cautious the closer we get to release.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On 7/26/18 12:15 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>
>>> We entered RDP2 today (07.26). So only P1 and P2 bug fixes allowed.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/26/18 3:14 PM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, of course it has to be well tested before the push.
>>> Does it make sense to plan it to push to 11 (after th testing is done)?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Serguei
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/26/18 12:08, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>
>>> Please make sure this fix is well tested in Mach5 prior to pushing.
>>> In particular, I'm focused on reducing the noise in Mach5 tier[1-3]
>>> so adding any new failures there will make me grumpy :-)
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/26/18 3:03 PM, JC Beyler wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> With the FatalError idea, here is the webrev to consider, note it no
>>> longer changes the tests. If a JNI call fails, then we call FatalError.
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think:
>>>
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8208303/webrev.01/
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208303
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Jc
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com <
>>> serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jc,
>>>>
>>>> Good idea.
>>>> I was thinking about something like this.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Serguei
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/26/18 10:40, JC Beyler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Serguei,
>>>>
>>>> As I was looking at another test bug (
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191519); the proposal for
>>>> that bug is to have a JNI call to FatalError to provoke a failure.
>>>>
>>>> If we went down that route, this webrev is simpler, no? Instead of
>>>> setting failure_status and checking it later; just fail fatally and be done
>>>> with it, no? That way, the tests in Java land don't have to be changed
>>>> actually, no?
>>>>
>>>> What would we prefer for tests? Remember there was a failure and test
>>>> it later or fail fast via JNI's FatalError?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:04 AM serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com <
>>>> serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jc,
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks good to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Serguei
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/26/18 09:58, JC Beyler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> The tests in the HeapMonitor subsystem has a lot of JNI calls. There
>>>>> is a need for verification and testing if anything in the JNI subsystem
>>>>> failed unexpectedly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a webrev that tracks if a JNI call does fail and the tests
>>>>> will fail if any JNI call does fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could I have a few reviews please for:
>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8208303/webrev.00/
>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208303
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jc
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
> Jc
>
>
>

-- 

Thanks,
Jc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20180808/8b750990/attachment.html>