On Fri, 9 May 2025 08:58:15 GMT, Leo Korinth <lkori...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> test/jdk/java/awt/font/NumericShaper/MTTest.java >> >> - * @run main/timeout=300/othervm MTTest >> + * @run main/timeout=1200/othervm MTTest >> >> I'm puzzling over why you saw this test fail with timeout = 300 .. or >> perhaps you saw it fail with 0.7 ? Which would amount to 210 seconds .. that >> might just be enough to cause it to fail because if you look at the whole >> test you'll see it wants the core loops of the test to run for 180 seconds. >> >> https://openjdk.github.io/cr/?repo=jdk&pr=25122&range=00#new-144-test/jdk/java/awt/font/NumericShaper/MTTest.java >> >> So 300 was fine, and 1200 isn't needed. > >> test/jdk/java/awt/font/NumericShaper/MTTest.java >> >> * * @run main/timeout=300/othervm MTTest >> >> >> * * @run main/timeout=1200/othervm MTTest >> >> >> I'm puzzling over why you saw this test fail with timeout = 300 .. or >> perhaps you saw it fail with 0.7 ? Which would amount to 210 seconds .. that >> might just be enough to cause it to fail because if you look at the whole >> test you'll see it wants the core loops of the test to run for 180 seconds. >> >> https://openjdk.github.io/cr/?repo=jdk&pr=25122&range=00#new-144-test/jdk/java/awt/font/NumericShaper/MTTest.java >> >> So 300 was fine, and 1200 isn't needed. > > I started with a timeout factor less than `0.7` but I got hindered by > CODETOOLS-7903937. That is probably the reason. Maybe I should change the > timeout to 400? I think it is reasonable to handle a timeout factor somewhat > less than 1 to weed out tight test cases. But maybe 300 is good enough? > @lkorinth Moving to a TIMEOUT_FACTOR of 1 seems a good goal. Would it be > possible to expand a bit on what repeat testing was done to identify the > tests to add /timeout ? If I read it correctly, any tests using /timeout=N > have been to bumped to 4*N so no change if the scaling is adjusted in the > future. Most tests don't use /timeout so I assume many runs were done to > identify the tests that would timeout with if there was no scaling. Test > machines vary, as does the test execution times when running concurrently > with other tests, so I think it would help if you could say a bit more, even > to confirm that it was many test runs. The code was run as it currently looks (with a timeout factor of `0.7`), what timeout factor do you think I should use to test, and for how many times? At the moment I am awaiting jtreg 7.6, I therefore guess the timeout factor change to `1` will happen after the fork. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25122#issuecomment-2865784064
