harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm]kernel test
Date Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:47:33 GMT
Elena,
As far as I understand from your letter the implementation is still to
be fixed. Could you please file a JIRA about it?

Geir,
As for the best of my knowledge there are no reliability runs for
kernel tests. This case proves that trying to run these tests in a
loop, especially in one JVM could be useful for detecting new
implementation flaws.

-- 
Thank you,
Alexei


On 11/27/06, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/06, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The problem with ThreadTest has not been fixed yet. I'm running this test
> > iteratively now to see the sporadic failures. Indeed, testJoinlongint()
> > fails rather often. The spec for join() reads that it should wait at most
> > millis milliseconds for this thread to die. But the thread which is
> > joining in the test does not stop
> >
>
> The obvious typo: I meant "the thread which is joined".
>
>
>  running. Can we allow join() to exit earlier in this case?
> >
>
> I modified the test so that to let join() wait  for10 ms less (which
> is 0.5%of waiting time) and ran it again iteratively. It failed once
> with 1972 ms
> of waiting!
>
> I looked through RI's bug database for relevant issues and found the
> following:
>
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4132653
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=5068368
>
> The last comment of the latter says that the spec will be fixed in Java SE
> 6.0!
>
> BTW, the test always passes on linux for me.
>
> Thanks,
> Elena
>
>
> > On 11/28/06, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I may have missed it, it's  very possible, could someone point me to the
> > > fix
> > > or the thread ? My comments are based on what's in Harmony drlvm trunk
> > > as of
> > > a few hours ago.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rana
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/27/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I thought this exact problem was identified and already fixed...
> > > >
> > > > geir
> > > >
> > > > Rana Dasgupta wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >   On Windows XP, java.lang.ThreadTest ( testJoinlongint component
)
> > > > keeps
> > > > > failing for me sporadically. Debugging this, I saw that the problem
> > > was
> > > > > with
> > > > > the expiry interval on thread.join(millis, nanos ). Tests based on
> > > timed
> > > > > waits are somewhat unpredictable on most platforms.
> > > > >  In condvar_wait_impl(), we seem to set up the timeout interval in
> > > > > microseconds before calling apr_thread_cond_timeout(). On Windows,
> > > > > apr_thread_cond_timeout() implements using WaitForSingleObject(
> > > event,
> > > > > timeout )....but the Windows timeout is in milliseconds, as far as
I
> > >
> > > > know.
> > > > > Is this not an error, or am I missing something? I did not want to
> > > > change
> > > > > anything since condvar_wait_impl() is on the code path of several
> > > timed
> > > > > waits.
> > > > >  Also, on a less important note, the tests testJoinLong() and
> > > > > testJoinLongint() seem to test to see that the thread.join(milli,
> > > nano)
> > > > > timeout is "at least" equal to the specified interval. My
> > > understanding
> > > > is
> > > > > that this should be "at most" the specified interval. Any ideas?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Rana
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Elena
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Elena
>
>


-- 
Thank you,
Alexei

Mime
View raw message