On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:59:23 GMT, Leonid Mesnik <lmes...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Yes, as long as there is a good value captured, Windows should pass.
>> We could get into how many good values we should see, I might suggest 6 out
>> of 10? But that seems like a guessing game.
>> The breakage in this feature before meant it could never return a good
>> value, that's what we need to guard against.
>
> I would simplify to
>
> for (int i = 0; i < TEST_COUNT; i++) {
> double load = mbean.getProcessCpuLoad();
> if (load == -1.0 && Platform.isWindows()) {
> // Some Windows 2019 systems can return -1 for the first few
> reads.
> // Remember a -1 in case it never gets better.
> // Some Windows systems can return -1 occasionally, at any
> time.
> // Will fail if we never see good values.
>
> } else if (load < 0.0 || load > 1.0) {
> throw new RuntimeException("getProcessCpuLoad() returns " +
> load
> + " which is not in the [0.0,1.0] interval");
> } else {
> // we got at least one load from 0.0 to 1.0, that's good to
> pass on Wiindows
> good++;
> }
> try {
> Thread.sleep(200);
>
> }
> }
>
>
> if (good == 0 && Platform.isWindows()) {
> // Never get any good results on Windows 2019
> throw throw new RuntimeException("getProcessCpuLoad() returns
> always -1.0 on Windows in 10 attempts. ");
> }
> }
>
> does it makes a sense?
Thanks Leonid, yes we could do it like that. There have to be a load of ways
we could arrange this. Yes, it could be a little simpler that what we have
now, although it's not _that_ complicated now...
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24961#discussion_r2069458654
