Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

extended.perf Tests Executed in Incorrect Order #181

Open
adamfarley opened this issue Apr 15, 2021 · 0 comments
Open

extended.perf Tests Executed in Incorrect Order #181

adamfarley opened this issue Apr 15, 2021 · 0 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@adamfarley
Copy link
Contributor

adamfarley commented Apr 15, 2021

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
Status: Todo
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants