harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Elena Semukhina" <elena.semukh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][smoke tests] Enabling smoke tests
Date Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:27:03 GMT
On 12/8/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Nice work - I'm testing it now and will commit.  If someone can test
> today on x86_64, that would be great, or I will do it tomorrow


At last I managed to start the tests on x86_64 and they passed.
They still print something like

test exception.FinalizeStackTest is skipped due to X_em64t

I'll verify if this is still valid tomorrow.


Elena

geir
>
>
> Elena Semukhina wrote:
> > After a few days of runs I can conclude that almost 40 tests are valid
> and
> > should be removed from the exclude lists. I've prepared a patch to smoke
> > tests: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2543
> >
> > After it is applied we'll have 3 stable issues:
> > 1) gc.Mark craches on Windows
> > 2) - 3)  stress.Stack and io.Integers will pass only on linux/JIT and
> fail
> > on other configurations because of StackOverflowError. Is it a known
> issue?
> >
> > We'll also have four tests failing intermittently. I plan to play with
> them
> > to get more details.
> >
> > All the above tests remain excluded.
> >
> > I prepared the update for ia32 platforms only because I don't have
> > access to
> > x86_64 machines for now. Hope to get it soon.
> >
> > I updated the http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/DRLVMInternalTests with new
> > details.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Elena
> >
> >
> > On 12/7/06, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/7/06, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 2006/12/6, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com>:
> >> > > On 12/5/06, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > How much total additional time would be needed to run the tests
> >> that
> >> > are
> >> > > > excluded for "slowness" only?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > There are 11 tests marked as slow. They run about 30 sec in JIT
> mode.
> >> > Only
> >> > > one of them is rather slow: gc.Mark (~15 sec).
> >> > >
> >> > > I compared the whole run duration on linux (JIT + interpreter).
> >> > Currently 26
> >> > > tests run for about 3 min 30 sec. Adding 42 tests from exclude list
> >> > > increases duration up to 11 minutes (1 min 40 sec for JIT).
> >> > >
> >> > > Is this time acceptable?
> >> >
> >> > Probably yes.Exact timings depend on hardware used; I guess the
> >> > figures above are on a laptop?
> >>
> >>
> >> No, 11 minutes are for multiprocessor machines (Windows/linux). On a
> >> single processor desktop the tests run for 24 minutes :(  Most
> >> annoying is
> >> the interpreter mode. We can agree later that some slow tests should be
> >> excluded for interpreter.
> >>
> >> Anyway I need a couple of days to run the tests intensively to reveal
> all
> >> unstable issues.
> >>
> >> Elena
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyway let's try them over! Later if someone analyzed coverage, we can
> >> > re-balance pre-commit and CI tests.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Elena
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > > Rana
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 12/5/06, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com >
wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > We currently have more than 40 smoke tests in the exclude
list.
> >> > > > > I tried to run all of them on linux/Windows and found out
that
> >> > most of
> >> > > > > them
> >> > > > > stably pass.
> >> > > > > Those of them which have been marked with the "slow" keyword
> >> don't
> >> > > > > actually
> >> > > > > run slow. They are not slower than an average smoke test.
Only
> >> few
> >> > of
> >> > > > them
> >> > > > > work about 10 seconds (comparing to 1-4 seconds duration
of any
> >> > other
> >> > > > > test).
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Only 3 tests stably fail and about 5 tests fail intermittently.
> >> > I've
> >> > > > added
> >> > > > > the details to the
> >> > > > http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/DRLVMInternalTestspage.
> >> > > > > I plan to file JIRA issues about failing tests and to gather
> more
> >> > > > > statictics
> >> > > > > on intermittent failures.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Does anybody object to removing most tests from exclude
lists
> and
> >> > bring
> >> > > > > them
> >> > > > > back to runs?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > Elena
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Elena
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Elena
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Thanks,
Elena

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message