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. > > 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? I think 300 is correct for this test. Setting the timeout factor to < 1 is an interesting experiment but I don't think tests that timeout in such a case are automatic candidates to have an increased time out and this one shows why. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25122#issuecomment-2867676176
