StackTest works for me on Fedora Core x86_32 Linux 2.6.15-27-686 #1 SMP.
BR Pavel Afremov. On 1/25/07, Pavel Afremov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SOE for x86_64 isn't required very mach, because this platform hasn't limits on stack size. The other case when this limits is set specially by ulimit –s command. For this configuration test should broke VM and should be excluded. But for x86_64 ONLY! On x86_32 it should works. Degradation on RHEL4 founded by Weldon should be investigated. BR Pavel Afremov. On 1/25/07, Elena Semukhina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/25/07, Pavel Afremov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > SOE implementeation for x86_64 platform was not contributed due a bug > in > > threading system. SOE for x86_32 should works on any platform. > > > > Weldon When did you notice that on your x86_32 machine? Did it works > > before > > or you didn't run tests on your RHEL4 machine before? > > > > > > > > I think that StackTest should be excluded. We should find changes > which is > > source of the crash. > > > Pavel, > > StackTest, stress.Stack and exception.FinalizeStackTest are excluded for > Linux x86_64 and *http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2972* has > been filed to track this issue. Could you please add a comment to this > issue? > > Besides, the overall picture of excluded smoke tests could be seen in > the > http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/DRLVMInternalTests page > > Elena > > > > Thanks. > > > > Pavel Afremov. > > > > > > > > > > On 1/15/07, Elena Semukhina < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 1/14/07, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 12, 2007, at 7:53 AM, Gregory Shimansky wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Elena Semukhina wrote: > > > > >>> I tried StackTest in jitrino debug mode on both SUSE9 linux 2 > CPU > > > > >>> ia32 and > > > > >>> em64t machines. It passed. It is now excluded for linux x86_64 > > > > (probably > > > > >>> Geir has excluded it because it always passed for me). > > > > >>> I ran it on that platform and saw rather strange behavior. The > > test > > > is > > > > >>> essentially the same as stress.Stack: both tests invoke a > method > > > > >>> recursively > > > > >>> waiting for StackOverflowError. The difference is that the > method > > is > > > > >>> void in > > > > >>> StackTest and boolean in stress.Stack. Another difference is > that > > > > >>> StackTest > > > > >>> should never fail: it detects both throwing StackOverflowError > and > > > not > > > > >>> throwing it as normal situation. Doing that it passes even > with > > > > >>> 200000000 > > > > >>> iterations with no StackOverflowError (!) (JIT) while on RI it > > gets > > > > >>> StackOverflowError after 650000 iterations. On drlvm linux > ia32 it > > > > gets > > > > >>> exception after 8600 iterations. It also gets the exception in > > > > >>> interpreter > > > > >>> mode on em64t (about 2400 iterations). > > > > >>> Can this be correct behavior? > > > > >> > > > > >> If you use SuSE9 on x86_64, then most likely it is because of > > > > >> weirdness of SuSE9 installation. It has no hard or soft stack > limit > > > by > > > > >> default (see ulimit -s). You can try to limit stack size like > > ulimit > > > > >> -s 8192 and then this test should not give too many iterations. > If > > > you > > > > >> upgrade to SuSE10, you will see that it has default stack limit > > 8192. > > > > >> > > > > >> The current implementation of SOE in drlvm is that it takes > stack > > > size > > > > >> from the system. If system has no limit, then stack has no > limit as > > > > >> well. It has been discussed in other threads about SOE that > this is > > > > >> not very good, but hasn't been fixed AFAIK. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I think that if we can find a way to have an "cononical > environment" > > > for > > > > > linux that get set before running the tests, that would be > useful. > > > > > > > > I agree. I think the easiest way would be to implement -Xss option > for > > > > drlvm and use it for those tests which actually depend on stack > size > > > > like StackTest and stress.Stack. > > > > > > > > > This task is already declared at > > > http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/CoreVmDevelopmentItems page. > > > I think there should be also a default stack size value for the > systems > > > with > > > unlimited stack size. The test shows that RI definitely limits stack > > size > > > on such systems. > > > > > > BTW, should we also change the test so that it fails after creating > a > > huge > > > number of stack frames? > > > > > > Elena > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Gregory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Elena > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Elena > >
