You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In one extended.perf run, each failed test target would be followed by the re-execution of earlier test targets.
Note that while stack overflows have been seen elsewhere, I've only seen this problem once.
Details
In a full extended.perf run, I expect each test target to be executed once apiece, in order. Here, though, we'd execute a test target, sometimes it would fail, and failed targets would be declared to be a different (earlier) test target, followed by the targets that were meant to be run after the different (incorrect) test target.
It's as if our position in the list of test targets is being repeatedly reset to the position of the earlier test target.
This issue is raised specifically to cover the problem where the ordering of the test targets could be changed during execution. Raising this as a TKG issue as that's where the playlist file is passed in, so that's where I assume the list (and ordering) of test targets is meant to be stored.
Summary
In one extended.perf run, each failed test target would be followed by the re-execution of earlier test targets.
Note that while stack overflows have been seen elsewhere, I've only seen this problem once.
Details
In a full extended.perf run, I expect each test target to be executed once apiece, in order. Here, though, we'd execute a test target, sometimes it would fail, and failed targets would be declared to be a different (earlier) test target, followed by the targets that were meant to be run after the different (incorrect) test target.
It's as if our position in the list of test targets is being repeatedly reset to the position of the earlier test target.
See this issue for the full story.
This issue is raised specifically to cover the problem where the ordering of the test targets could be changed during execution. Raising this as a TKG issue as that's where the playlist file is passed in, so that's where I assume the list (and ordering) of test targets is meant to be stored.
Link
https://ci.adoptopenjdk.net/job/Test_openjdk11_j9_extended.perf_ppc64_aix/15/
Grinder Link
Attempting to reproduce. Link.
Result: Saw one StackOverflow, but we need more than one to reproduce this.
Bigger repro: https://ci.adoptopenjdk.net/job/Grinder/114/
Repro Link
https://ci.adoptopenjdk.net/job/Grinder/parambuild/?SDK_RESOURCE=upstream&TARGET=extended.perf&TEST_FLAG=&UPSTREAM_TEST_JOB_NAME=&DOCKER_REQUIRED=false&ACTIVE_NODE_TIMEOUT=0&VENDOR_TEST_DIRS=&EXTRA_DOCKER_ARGS=&TKG_OWNER_BRANCH=AdoptOpenJDK%3Amaster&TEST_PARALLELIZATION_PARAMS=&PLATFORM=ppc64_aix&KEEP_REPORTDIR=false&PERSONAL_BUILD=false&ADOPTOPENJDK_REPO=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FAdoptOpenJDK%2Fopenjdk-tests.git&LABEL=&TEST_OPTIONS_PARAMS=&EXTRA_OPTIONS=&CUSTOMIZED_SDK_URL=&BUILD_IDENTIFIER=&NON_AQA_TEST_REPOS_HELP_TEXT=&ADOPTOPENJDK_BRANCH=master&LIGHT_WEIGHT_CHECKOUT=false&NON_AQA_TEST_REPOS=&ARTIFACTORY_SERVER=&TEST_REPO_PARAMS=&TEST_SELECTION_PARAMS=&TEST_PARALLELIZATION_PARAMS_HELP_TEXT=&JDK_SELECTION_PARAMS=&KEEP_WORKSPACE=false&USER_CREDENTIALS_ID=&JDK_VERSION=11&ITERATIONS=1&VENDOR_TEST_REPOS=&JDK_REPO=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fibmruntimes%2Fopenj9-openjdk-jdk11&PLATFORM_AND_MACHINE_HELP_TEXT=&RELEASE_TAG=&OPENJ9_BRANCH=master&OPENJ9_SHA=&JCK_GIT_REPO=&VENDOR_TEST_BRANCHES=&UPSTREAM_JOB_NAME=build-scripts%2Fjobs%2Fjdk11u%2Fjdk11u-aix-ppc64-openj9&OPENJ9_REPO=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Feclipse%2Fopenj9.git&PLATFORM_AND_MACHINE=&CUSTOM_TARGET=&VENDOR_TEST_SHAS=&JDK_BRANCH=openj9&LABEL_ADDITION=&ARTIFACTORY_REPO=&ARTIFACTORY_ROOT_DIR=&POST_RUN_PARAMS_HELP_TEXT=&UPSTREAM_TEST_JOB_NUMBER=&DOCKERIMAGE_TAG=&JDK_SELECTION_PARAMS_HELP_TEXT=&JDK_IMPL=openj9&SSH_AGENT_CREDENTIAL=&AUTO_DETECT=true&TKG_SHA=&TEST_SELECTION_PARAMS_HELP_TEXT=&CUSTOMIZED_SDK_URL_CREDENTIAL_ID=&OPENJDK_SHA=&NUM_MACHINES=&BUILD_LIST=perf&UPSTREAM_JOB_NUMBER=964&TEST_REPO_PARAMS_HELP_TEXT=&POST_RUN_PARAMS=&TIME_LIMIT=10&TEST_OPTIONS_PARAMS_HELP_TEXT=&JVM_OPTIONS=&PARALLEL=None
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: