Hi Roger,

Le me be more explicit, is getCpuTime() something that gets normalized to zero-ish at the start of each run or is it just a shapshot of some nano-second granularity counter? If it is the latter, it is possible that the counter value is negative or near the long overflow threshold.

-Joe

On 7/8/2015 2:11 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Joe,

The cputime loop is designed to run up the cputime of a child process a specific
amount so that the parent can verify that the cputime information reported
about the child is correct.

No issues on either point, the range long in nanoseconds is more than sufficient for the length of time this test is running. The test only asks for the child to use 100ms.

Thanks, Roger

On 7/8/2015 5:05 PM, joe darcy wrote:
Hi Roger,

A few comments on the updated version.

284 long cpuMillis = Long.valueOf(args[nextArg++]); 285 long cpuTarget = getCpuTime() + cpuMillis * 1_000_000L;
 286                         while (getCpuTime() < cpuTarget) {
 287                             // burn the cpu until the time is up

Are there interger overflow issues in adding to the result of getCpuTime()?

Should the time values be a function of the timeout factor the test is running under?

If the answer to both of these is "no," then I think this is okay as-is.

Thanks,

-Joe

On 7/8/2015 1:07 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Joe,

Updated the webrev in place.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-info-8098852/

On 7/7/2015 7:59 PM, joe darcy wrote:
Hi Roger,

Generally looks okay; a few comments and suggestions

114             long cpulooptime = 100;             // 100 ms

How about

    cpuLoopTime
ok

instead? Same comment for the other variables that don't follow camel-case conventions.
I fixed a few others too.

284 long cpumillis = Long.valueOf(args[nextArg++]); 285 long cpuTarget = getCpuTime() + cpumillis * 1_000_000L;
 286                         while (getCpuTime() < cpuTarget) {

Is it correct to multiply cpu-millis by 1e6 rather than 1e3?
Yes, CpuTime is in nanos = millis * 1000 (micros) * 1000

Thanks, Roger


-Joe

On 7/7/2015 11:52 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Please review this ProcessHandle test change to cleanup intermittent failures.
The cpuloop timing uses the cputime of the spawned process and the
test runs fewer iterations and relaxes the threshold.

Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-info-8098852/

Issue:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8098852

Thanks, Roger






Reply via email to