Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 11:42:17 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: >> Hi all, >> After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the >> footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with >> -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. >> Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we >> should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. >> Only change the testcase, the change has been verified, no risk. > >> Unfortunately I'm not familiar with these tests. > >> After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the >> codecache usage increased significantly, non-profiled 3068Kb->3583Kb, >> profiled 6408Kb->7846Kb. > > Can you confirm that the codecache usage increased is expected or not after > [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960) with -Xcomp jvm > option. > @sendaoYan, Given Adam's inputs and the reviews you have had for this change, > I think you should be able to go ahead and integrate this. Thanks all for the review. Can you sponsor this PR for me. @jaikiran - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2238306043
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: > Hi all, > After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the > footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with > -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. > Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we > should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. > Only change the testcase, the change has been verified, no risk. Thanks for the sponsor. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2238518349
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: > Hi all, > After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the > footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with > -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. > Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we > should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. > Only change the testcase, the change has been verified, no risk. @sendaoYan Your change (at version a7c1d63434bbb24122f4256cb695129afac70804) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2238311075
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 11:42:17 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: >> Hi all, >> After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the >> footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with >> -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. >> Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we >> should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. >> Only change the testcase, the change has been verified, no risk. > >> Unfortunately I'm not familiar with these tests. > >> After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the >> codecache usage increased significantly, non-profiled 3068Kb->3583Kb, >> profiled 6408Kb->7846Kb. > > Can you confirm that the codecache usage increased is expected or not after > [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960) with -Xcomp jvm > option. @sendaoYan, Given Adam's inputs and the reviews you have had for this change, I think you should be able to go ahead and integrate this. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2238072647
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: > Hi all, > After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the > footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with > -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. > Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we > should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. > Only change the testcase, the change has been verified, no risk. I can confirm [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960) had effect on JDK bootstrap (benchmarked and discussed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/17108 ). And there might be measurable differences in various benchmarks sensitive to JDK bootstrap. However I cannot confirm the numbers above, simply because I do not know what they represent. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2236630582
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: > Hi all, > After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the > footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with > -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. > Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we > should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. > Only change the testcase, the change has been verified, no risk. > Unfortunately I'm not familiar with these tests. > After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the > codecache usage increased significantly, non-profiled 3068Kb->3583Kb, > profiled 6408Kb->7846Kb. Can you confirm that the codecache usage increased is expected or not after [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960) with -Xcomp jvm option. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2236291264
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: > Hi all, > After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the > footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with > -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. > Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we > should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. > Only change the testcase, the change has been verified, no risk. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with these tests. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2236018675
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:45:43 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote: > Looks okay. I agree this needs to be reviewed by @asotona . Thanks for the review. I will wait reviewed by @asotona before integrate. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2236003849
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: > Hi all, > After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the > footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with > -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. > Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we > should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. > Only change the testcase, the change has been verified, no risk. Looks okay. - Marked as reviewed by sspitsyn (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#pullrequestreview-2185137791
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 05:52:51 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: > So I think we should have this increase in memory reviewed by @asotona or > someone familiar in that area, before deciding whether these tests should be > changed. Okey. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2235717028
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: > After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the > footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with > -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. Hello @sendaoYan, after changes in JDK-8294960, there were a couple of issues reported. From what I see in the linked issues, Adam reviewed those and integrated relevant fixes. In JDK-8334771 you note: > After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the > codecache usage increased significantly, non-profiled 3068Kb->3583Kb, > profiled 6408Kb->7846Kb. So I think we should have this increase in memory reviewed by @asotona or someone familiar in that area, before deciding whether these tests should be changed. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2235607869
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: > Hi all, > After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the > footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with > -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. > Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we > should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. > Only change the testcase, the change has been verified, no risk. @sendaoYan Your change (at version a7c1d63434bbb24122f4256cb695129afac70804) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2235175938
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: > Hi all, > After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the > footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with > -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. > Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we > should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. > Only change the testcase, the change has been verified, no risk. Thanks for the review and approved. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2235174531
Re: RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: > Hi all, > After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the > footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with > -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. > Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we > should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. > Only change the testcase, the change has been verified, no risk. Marked as reviewed by lmesnik (Reviewer). - PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#pullrequestreview-2184371193
RFR: 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137
Hi all, After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM. Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I think we should increase the smallest memory limite for this testcase. Only change the testcase, the change has been verified, no risk. - Commit messages: - 8334771: [TESTBUG] Run TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java with -Xcomp fails exitValue = 137 Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=19864&range=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334771 Stats: 5 lines in 2 files changed: 2 ins; 0 del; 3 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/19864/head:pull/19864 PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864
