On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 04:27:03 GMT, Chris Plummer <cjplum...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Yes -- Maybe just take out this extra timeout. I'm being too respectful of >> things that have been in the test forever, but aren't of much use. Some >> tests have their own timeouts, when jtreg can just time them out. >> >> Checking again, the timeouts I've seen from this tests are from the jtreg >> harness, not the loop that had a 1000 second timeout, or even when I change >> it, it's still jtreg giving the timeout. Should remove it. >> >> ARGS_ATTEMPTS could be even longer. If it completely fails to read a >> process arguments, we are at risk of failing later due to timeout. We may >> as well try harder, this is the part that might fail and need retrying when >> the processes are slow to start. > > Yes, I think the issue is that hasMainArgs() does not succeed after > ARGS_ATTEMPTS (3), which probably means 30 seconds given the 10 second attach > timeout. Once this happens, waitForRemoval() will timeout no matter how long > you wait. Setting ARGS_ATTEMPTS to 5 might be enough to alleviate this > problem, although you might want to go with something more like 10 just to > make sure we can eliminate this as the cause if it comes up again. Great, that's exactly what I did with this update 8-) ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24843#discussion_r2063205340
