Hi Erik, On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 10:01 -0800, Erik Joelsson wrote: > Hello Severin, > > Taking ulimit -u into account does seem like a good idea. I don't see > why it needs to be limited to just aarch64 though. It should however be > limited to OSes that use ulimit (i.e. not windows). > > I would suggest removing the arbitrary thresholds of 16 and 4096 and try > to come up with a plain number based on the ulimit value. You are saying > 14 is good for 4096, so the formula for the ULIMIT_DIVIDER is 4096 / 14, > which you can just write as: > > ULIMIT_DIVIER := (4096 / 14) > > And let the awk script calculate it if needed. In the awk script, you > need to put line 275 as conditional of the if statement on line 274. > Otherwise ULIMIT=-1 will cause concurrency -1.
Thanks for the review! Updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8233712/02/webrev/ What do you think? Thanks, Severin > /Erik > > On 2019-11-07 06:59, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could I please get a review of this change for running tests on big > > Aarch64 boxes? Currently, only memory and number of cores are taken > > into account for the -concurrency setting of jtreg. After this patch > > ulimit -u settings are taken into account as well on big Aarch64 boxes > > with > 16 cores, yet low ulimit -u setting (<= 4096). This is to avoid > > running into the max allowed threads limit causing random test > > failures. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8233712 > > webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8233712/01/webrev/ > > > > Testing: Ran tier1 tests on a large Aarch64 box and low ulimit -u > > value. Tests run stable. Did the same for a user with high ulimit -u > > value, which resulted in concurrency setting as before this patch. > > > > Thanks, > > Severin > >
