On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 19:30:27 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
>> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
>> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
>> like
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 19:30:27 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
>> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
>> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
>> like
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 19:30:27 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
>> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
>> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
>> like
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 19:30:27 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
>> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
>> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
>> like
> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
> likely the same issue and increasing ARGS_ATTEMPTS has been see
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 21:05:34 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
>> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
>> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
>> like
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 21:05:34 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
>> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
>> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
>> like
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 04:27:03 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> Yes -- Maybe just take out this extra timeout. I'm being too respectful of
>> things that have been in the test forever, but aren't of much use. Some
>> tests have their own timeouts, when jtreg can just time them out.
>>
>> Checking
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 20:56:59 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> test/jdk/sun/jvmstat/monitor/MonitoredVm/MonitorVmStartTerminate.java line
>> 78:
>>
>>> 76: private static final int PROCESS_COUNT = 10;
>>> 77: private static final int ARGS_ATTEMPTS = 5;
>>> 78: private static final int REMO
> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
> likely the same issue and increasing ARGS_ATTEMPTS has been see
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 16:27:13 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> REMOVE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS
>
> test/jdk/sun/jvmstat/monitor/MonitoredVm/MonitorVmStartTerminate.java line 78:
>
>> 76:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:38:27 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
>> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
>> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
>> like
> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
> likely the same issue and increasing ARGS_ATTEMPTS has been see
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 17:15:22 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote:
>> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Less unnecessary logging of expected exceptions
>
> test/jdk/sun/jvmstat/monitor/MonitoredVm/MonitorVmStartTerminate.ja
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:30:22 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
>> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
>> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
>> like
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 08:53:42 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
> likely t
> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
> likely the same issue and increasing ARGS_ATTEMPTS has been see
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 08:53:42 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
> likely t
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 08:53:42 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> This issue was hard to reproduce or had stopped happening, but was likely a
> failure to capture the main arguments from a monitored process, caused by
> slow startups e.g. -Xcomp. Recent failures seen in Graal testing are most
> likely t
19 matches
Mail list logo
