8305618: Move gcold out of tier1

[lkorinth]

8305618: Move gcold out of tier1

Remove gcold out from tier1. Related to JDK-8298981. Moving gcbasher out of tier1 was more controversial, and will be done later --- if at all.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8305618: Move gcold out of tier1

Reviewers

• Leonid Mesnik (@lmesnik - Reviewer)
• Aleksey Shipilev (@shipilev - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/13340/head:pull/13340
$ git checkout pull/13340

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/13340
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/13340/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 13340

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 13340

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13340.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back lkorinth! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@lkorinth The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• hotspot

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 01: Full - Incremental (8a6b6262)
• 00: Full (72805395)

[openjdk]

@lkorinth This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8305618: Move gcold out of tier1

Reviewed-by: lmesnik, shade

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 212 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 08fbb7b: 8272119: Typo in JDK documentation (a -> an)
• 536ad9d: 8305461: [vectorapi] Add VectorMask::xor
• ddd50d0: 8305608: Change VMConnection to use "test.class.path"instead of "test.classes"
• ce10460: 8274166: Some CDS tests ignore -Dtest.cds.runtime.options
• e52a2ae: 8304745: Lazily initialize byte[] in java.io.BufferedInputStream
• 6580c4e: 8267140: Support closing the HttpClient by making it auto-closable
• b5ea140: 8269843: typo in LinkedHashMap::removeEldestEntry spec
• a6a3cf4: 8305480: test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/NMT/VirtualAllocCommitMerge.java failing on 32 bit arm
• 35d2293: 8305607: Remove some unused test parameters in com/sun/jdi tests
• 5764119: 8303563: GetCurrentThreadCpuTime and GetThreadCpuTime need further clarification for virtual threads
• ... and 202 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/eda006510792de75d898cd66eeb86a00ad2fd45a...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[dholmes-ora]

You've removed tier1_gc_gcold from tier1_gc as stated, but shouldn't that group now be renamed as it is no longer part of tier1? And does it need to be added into another tier?

[shipilev]

You've removed tier1_gc_gcold from tier1_gc as stated, but shouldn't that group now be renamed as it is no longer part of tier1? And does it need to be added into another tier?

+1.

Shenandoah runs both gcold and gcbasher in tier3, should we run these in tier3 as well? Otherwise they would get caught by tier4, which is too long for many to run.

[lkorinth]

I can add tier1_gc_gcold to tier2 or tier3 (and rename it to correct tier number), or I could just remove it and it will run in tier4. What do you prefer?

[lmesnik]

You've removed tier1_gc_gcold from tier1_gc as stated, but shouldn't that group now be renamed as it is no longer part of tier1? And does it need to be added into another tier?

There is some misunderstanding in the gc tiers/groups naming and usage.
We use only tier1_gc and hotspot_gc groups in our testing and don't use hotspot tier2/tier3 test groups directly.

Thus, the gc_old tests would be executed with all other tests from hotspot_gc. And we just not going to use this test group. I am fine with renaming it and adding to the tier3 if is more convenient for openjdk users.

[shipilev]

I can add tier1_gc_gcold to tier2 or tier3 (and rename it to correct tier number), or I could just remove it and it will run in tier4. What do you prefer?

I prefer tier3. GC stress tests belong there, I think.

[shipilev]

I like this. Have you confirmed these actually run in tier3?

[lkorinth]

Yes, it passes and it runs gcold.

[lkorinth]

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit c0c3122.
Since your change was applied there have been 282 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 3651b92: 8305944: assert(is_aligned(ref, HeapWordSize)) failed: invariant
• 12358e6: 8305934: PPC64: Disable VMContinuations on Big Endian
• 287bb06: 8305902: (cs) Resolve default Charset only once in StreamEncoder and StreamDecoder
• 8a1639d: 8305936: JavaThread::create_system_thread_object has unused is_visible argument
• 76cda9f: 8255548: Missing coverage for javax.xml.crypto.dom.DOMCryptoContext
• b60604e: 8305794: Unused interface sun.security.util.PermissionFactory can be removed
• 92521b1: 8305875: Test TraceVirtualThreadLocals should be run with continuations only
• 00eb348: 8305937: com/sun/jdi/SetLocalWhileThreadInNative.java fails with -XX:+TieredCompilation
• 1385c3d: 8305966: ProblemList com/sun/jdi/JdbLastErrorTest.java on windows-x64
• 90b4006: 8305847: Improve diagnosability and resilience of HttpClient::close tests
• ... and 272 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/eda006510792de75d898cd66eeb86a00ad2fd45a...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@lkorinth Pushed as commit c0c3122.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.