On Feb 4 2013, at 08:33 , Alan Bateman wrote: > On 04/02/2013 16:02, Mike Duigou wrote: >> : >>> If so then I think we have to careful because -concurrency means a lot of >>> virtual memory and I'm not convinced that we limit it via -vmoption in >>> jdk/test/Makefile >>> I could see us wanting to dial this down on 32-bit Windows for example. >> We do limit the max size via -Xmx512M which does seem quite small and is >> generally well balanced with the number of cores. >> >> I opened a build/infrastructure issue to have MEMORY_SIZE and perhaps some >> suggested VM sizes recorded to the spec.gmk I planned to revisit this again >> once only new build is supported. > My reading of the make file is that -J-Xmx512m is passed to jtreg and so it's > the maximum heap size of the jtreg process, not the agent VMs running tests. > If we are turning on concurrency then it will need -vmoption:-Xmx512m too, > otherwise you risk each agent reserving 1/4 of physical memory. In addition, > limited virtual memory on Windows 32-bit will limit the number of agent VMs > that you can run and so $(JOBS) may be too much. You might need to limit it > to 2 or 3 on Windows 32-bit.
OK, that is my misunderstanding. I thought it was being applied to both the jtreg vm and the test vms. I think for now I will just remove concurrent rather than try to set VM sizing. > >> >>> Also I'm not 100% sure that jdk/test/TEST.ROOT is up to date for the client >>> area -- that's the place where excludeAccess.dirs lists the directories >>> with tests that cannot run concurrently. >> The makefile currently segregates tests to use othervm or agentvm by target >> ie. jdk_beans1 . I haven't checked whether these are synchronized against >> TEST.ROOT and indeed it would be a shame if these had not been kept in sync. >> (This is why I added notes about "keep this in sync with ..." in various >> places) I will check this with Stuart Marks today and plan remediation if >> necessary. > I think we should ultimately remove the othervm vs. agentvm selection from > the make file. Agreed > I just checked TEST.ROOT and othervm.dirs is right. The value of > exclusiveAccess.dirs looks right too but may be incomplete -- I just don't > run the client area tests to know if there are any areas that cannot run > concurrently. We can hopefully improve this in future rounds. Mike
