On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 13:27 +0200, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > On 6/27/19 1:20 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 11:58 +0200, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > > > On 5/22/19 6:34 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > > hotspot: > > > > > > *) Test exclusion question. Do we really want to exclude these tests from > > > tier1? I would rather see > > > them included and make them fail in regular runs. This would put pressure > > > on fixing them for 8u... > > > > > > 150 # Right now tier1 runs all hotspot tests except RTM tests, > > > 151 # and one serviceability test which seems flakey. > > > 152 hotspot_tier1 = \ > > > 153 :jdk \ > > > 154 -compiler/rtm \ > > > 155 -serviceability/sa/jmap-hashcode/Test8028623.java > > > > I'm not sure about it. We could exclude nothing and go from there. > > However, the more tests we have failing from the get-go the less useful > > it is to enforce tier1 tests to always pass for JDK 8u (bad > > signal/noise ratio). I'd be OK for Test8028623.java, but the > > compiler/rtm tests, I'm not so sure... Thoughts? > > From my perspective, new test profile would inevitably show some (new) > failures. > > We would need to work to fix those failures before we can rely on low SNR in > tier1. Ignoring tests > may skip over the tests that need attention during that transitional period. > We don't ignore the > tests that are failing right now in fastdebug, right? Same thing here. > > In other words, I would rather see tier1 suite to land, and then work on > fixing/ignoring tests once > we understand how/if they are fixable.
OK. Updated langtools/hotspot webrevs with no exclusions. jdk had no exclusions to begin with: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8222737/03/langtools/webrev/ http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8222737/03/hotspot/webrev/ Thoughts? Thanks, Severin
