-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.1k
8360641: TestCompilerCounts fails after 8354727 #26024
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
👋 Welcome back mhaessig! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@mhaessig This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details. After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:
You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed. At the time when this comment was updated there had been 29 new commits pushed to the
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details. ➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the |
Webrevs
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot for fixing this @mhaessig!
I left a couple of inline comments and just noticed you might want to add the copyright note as well 🙂
} | ||
|
||
// Buffer sizes for caclulating the maximum number of compiler threads. | ||
static final int NonNMethodCodeHeapSize = 5 * 1024 * 1024; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the NonNMethodCodeHeapSize
value chosen "on purpose"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not really. We could choose it to be larger. That would just make the cutoff be at a higher CPU count. With 5 MiB, this will also perform a cutoff with less CPUs and should test both code paths on more machines.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for fixing it! I have tested it successfully. Looks good besides what other reviewers have already commented.
@vnkozlov, @dafedafe, and @TheRealMDoerr, thank you for having a look! I addressed all your comments in ab1c7d9. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
After integrating #25872 the calculation of the
CICompilerCount
ergonomic became dependent on the size ofNonNMethodCodeHeapSize
, which itself is an ergonomic based on the available memory. Thus, depending on the system, the testcompiler/arguments/TestCompilerCounts.java
failed, i.e. locally this failed, but not on CI servers.This PR changes the test to reflect the changes introduced in #25872.
Testing:
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26024/head:pull/26024
$ git checkout pull/26024
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/26024
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26024/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 26024
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 26024
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26024.diff
Using Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment