On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 11:19:17 GMT, Matthias Baesken <mbaes...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> What do you think about accepting, when setting -1/unlimited, a high limit >>> number like 20.000+ as well (and and a comment that on some setups >>> unlimited means just "high number" but not unlimited? >> >> This seems most reasonable. I'd suggest to accept a limit of `> 20000` or >> `Unlimited` in the test output. In case of it NOT being `Unlimited` for the >> `--pids-limit=-1` case, I'd also include the actual output in logs with a >> message that it got accepted as unlimited. >> >>> Another Idea I had was to start a little test java program that creates >>> e.g. 50.000 (or another high number) of threads. If this fails with >>> "unilimited" pids-limit set, we might have a setup like yours and then skip >>> the test (or accept a high number like I suggested). >> >> This seems overkill and prone to failures, IMHO. > >> > What do you think about accepting, when setting -1/unlimited, a high limit >> > number like 20.000+ as well (and and a comment that on some setups >> > unlimited means just "high number" but not unlimited? >> >> This seems most reasonable. I'd suggest to accept a limit of `> 20000` or >> `Unlimited` in the test output. In case of it NOT being `Unlimited` for the >> `--pids-limit=-1` case, I'd also include the actual output in logs with a >> message that it got accepted as unlimited. >> > > Hi Severin, I adjusted the tests so that in case of Unlimited, an integer > value > 20000 is accepted as well. > Hopefully this addresses the issues observed on your setup. > Best regards, Matthias @MBaesken Thanks. I'll test it and will report back. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4518
