Skip to content

Conversation

@antonvoznia
Copy link
Contributor

@antonvoznia antonvoznia commented Oct 31, 2025

Hi all,

Clean backport of JDK-8347129

Ran test locally on Fedora 43 arm, under test/hotspot/jtreg/containers/

Without the fix:

containers/cgroup/CgroupSubsystemFactory.java  Passed. Execution successful
containers/cgroup/PlainRead.java               Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/DockerBasicTest.java         Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/ShareTmpDir.java             Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/TestCPUAwareness.java        Failed. Execution failed: `main' threw exception: java.lang.RuntimeException: 'active_processor_count.*1' missing from stdout/stderr
containers/docker/TestCPUSets.java             Failed. Execution failed: `main' threw exception: java.lang.RuntimeException: assertTrue: expected true, was false
containers/docker/TestJFREvents.java           Failed. Execution failed: `main' threw exception: java.lang.RuntimeException: 'totalSize = 209715200' missing from stdout/stderr
containers/docker/TestJFRNetworkEvents.java    Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/TestJcmdWithSideCar.java     Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/TestMemoryAwareness.java     Failed. Execution failed: `main' threw exception: java.lang.RuntimeException: 'Memory Limit is:.*104857600' missing from stdout/stderr
containers/docker/TestMemoryWithCgroupV1.java  Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/TestMisc.java                Failed. Execution failed: `main' threw exception: java.lang.RuntimeException: 'CheckContainerized: Running inside a container' missing from stdout/stderr
containers/docker/TestPids.java                Failed. Execution failed: `main' threw exception: java.lang.RuntimeException: assertTrue: expected true, was false

With the fix:

containers/cgroup/CgroupSubsystemFactory.java  Passed. Execution successful
containers/cgroup/PlainRead.java               Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/DockerBasicTest.java         Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/ShareTmpDir.java             Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/TestCPUAwareness.java        Failed. Execution failed: `main' threw exception: java.lang.RuntimeException: Expected to get exit value of [0]
containers/docker/TestCPUSets.java             Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/TestJFREvents.java           Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/TestJFRNetworkEvents.java    Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/TestJcmdWithSideCar.java     Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/TestMemoryAwareness.java     Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/TestMemoryWithCgroupV1.java  Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/TestMisc.java                Passed. Execution successful
containers/docker/TestPids.java                Failed. Execution failed: `main' threw exception: java.lang.RuntimeException: Limit value 9366 is not accepted as unlimited, log line was [0.036s][trace][os,container] Maximum number of tasks is: 9366

Test containers/docker/TestCPUAwareness.java fails because of JDK-8282684.
I also encountered this issue In JDK17.

Test containers/docker/TestPids.java fails in JDK21 and JDK17 as well where the fix persists already.

GHA Sanity Checks passed


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • JDK-8347129 needs maintainer approval

Warning

 ⚠️ Found leading lowercase letter in issue title for 8347129: cpuset cgroups controller is required for no good reason

Issue

  • JDK-8347129: cpuset cgroups controller is required for no good reason (Bug - P3 - Approved)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev.git pull/3109/head:pull/3109
$ git checkout pull/3109

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/3109
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev.git pull/3109/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 3109

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 3109

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev/pull/3109.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

Backport-of: be245be258cda7e06366b4051eec24ad6df04f20
@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Oct 31, 2025

👋 Welcome back antonvoznia! 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
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Oct 31, 2025

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

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

8347129: cpuset cgroups controller is required for no good reason

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 12 new commits pushed to the master branch:

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.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

@openjdk openjdk bot changed the title Backport 900b3ff7ee933520efe2438fb7c841a4e6a93d17 8351359: OperatingSystemMXBean: values from getCpuLoad and getProcessCpuLoad are stale after 24.8 days (Windows) Oct 31, 2025
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Oct 31, 2025

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

@openjdk openjdk bot added backport Port of a pull request already in a different code base rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Oct 31, 2025
@antonvoznia antonvoznia changed the title 8351359: OperatingSystemMXBean: values from getCpuLoad and getProcessCpuLoad are stale after 24.8 days (Windows) Backport 2de71d04454b04ee887f7bd3e5decbfaa9ab8460 Oct 31, 2025
@openjdk openjdk bot changed the title Backport 2de71d04454b04ee887f7bd3e5decbfaa9ab8460 8347129: cpuset cgroups controller is required for no good reason Oct 31, 2025
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Oct 31, 2025

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the clean Identical backport; no merge resolution required label Oct 31, 2025
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Oct 31, 2025

⚠️ @antonvoznia This change is now ready for you to apply for maintainer approval. This can be done directly in each associated issue or by using the /approval command.

@antonvoznia
Copy link
Contributor Author

/approval request Clean backport, tested locally and with GHA Sanity Checks. Few tests failed, but it's not related to the backport.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Oct 31, 2025

@antonvoznia
8347129: The approval request has been created successfully.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the approval Requires approval; will be removed when approval is received label Oct 31, 2025
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Oct 31, 2025

Webrevs

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 11, 2025

⚠️ @antonvoznia the full name on your profile does not match the author name in this pull requests' HEAD commit. If this pull request gets integrated then the author name from this pull requests' HEAD commit will be used for the resulting commit. If you wish to push a new commit with a different author name, then please run the following commands in a local repository of your personal fork:

$ git checkout JDK-8347129-container-detection-fixes
$ git commit --author='Preferred Full Name <you@example.com>' --allow-empty -m 'Update full name'
$ git push

@openjdk openjdk bot added ready Pull request is ready to be integrated and removed approval Requires approval; will be removed when approval is received labels Nov 11, 2025
@jerboaa
Copy link
Contributor

jerboaa commented Nov 11, 2025

Test containers/docker/TestCPUAwareness.java fails because of JDK-8282684.

I'm pretty sure the test fails because of JDK-8370492 on F43. JDK-8282684 is the reason why it doesn't show up for JDK 17+ (i.e. isn't tested there, but the issue exists).

@antonvoznia
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jerboaa thank you for the note.

In my case the test failed TestCPUAwareness.java because of
"java.lang.RuntimeException: 'active_processor_count.*1' missing from stdout/stderr "

The test expects one active processor count, but the actual value is two:
[0.002s][trace][os,container] CgroupSubsystem::active_processor_count (cached): 2

Does the cpushare affect the active processor count number?

@jerboaa
Copy link
Contributor

jerboaa commented Nov 13, 2025

Does the cpushare affect the active processor count number?

For JDK 17 and below it does, yes. It's using -XX:+UseContainerCpuShares.

@antonvoznia
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jerboaa I see, thanks

@antonvoznia
Copy link
Contributor Author

/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Nov 13, 2025
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 13, 2025

@antonvoznia
Your change (at version c29a6ca) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

@phohensee
Copy link
Member

/sponsor

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 13, 2025

Going to push as commit 9b9babc.
Since your change was applied there have been 12 commits pushed to the master branch:

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Nov 13, 2025
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Nov 13, 2025
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored labels Nov 13, 2025
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 13, 2025

@phohensee @antonvoznia Pushed as commit 9b9babc.

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

backport Port of a pull request already in a different code base clean Identical backport; no merge resolution required integrated Pull request has been integrated

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants