[JDK-8260555](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8260555) changed the default 
TIMEOUT_FACTOR from 1 to 4 to make it easier to understand how our timeouts 
worked. Together with that small change, we also bumped a number of tests that 
relied on the previous extended timeout. The anticipation was that there would 
be some fallout from that change and that we for a short time after it had been 
integrated would have to tweak some tests that intermittently needed a larger 
timeout.

It turns out that the way we run tests concurrently causes the tests to 
sometimes run in a resource-constrained manner. This has the effect that even 
simple tests that usually don't take a long time to execute run the risk of 
hitting the default 120s timeout limit. This invalidates the earlier plan to 
fix the additional, few tests that now times out, because it's probably not the 
tests themselves that are the problem, but rather how we run the tests.

Hunting down the reasons for the new set of timeouts we are seeing is good and 
figuring out how to fix our testing to not over-strain our testing machines is 
also something that we want to do. The problem is that there's enough of these 
timeouts that it affects more than just a limited set of JDK devs.

The proposal is that we, for now, revert back to the default timeout factor of 
4 to relive the pressure to investigate and fix these intermittent timeouts. 
And revert back to 1 once enough investigation and tweaks have been made to the 
test infrastructure.

I will run this through Oracle's tier1-tier8 testing.

-------------

Commit messages:
 - 8369491: Temporarily revert default TIMEOUT_FACTOR back to 4

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27721/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=27721&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8369491
  Stats: 4 lines in 3 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 4 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27721.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27721/head:pull/27721

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27721

Reply via email to