test: tune test-uv-threadpool-schedule

[Trott]

test-uv-threadpool-schedule has been failing consistently in
node-daily-master CI. It also fails consistently on my personal laptop.
These changes make it pass consistently with current master but fail
consistently with Node.js 10.11 (which was the last release in the 10.x
line before the fix that the test is for). It succeeds/fails as expected
whether or not I am connected to the network.

Fixes: #25305

/ping @gireeshpunathil

Checklist

• make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
• commit message follows commit guidelines

[nodejs-github-bot]

@Trott build started: https://ci.nodejs.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/detail/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/2147/pipeline

[Trott]

CI job that runs the internet test: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-custom-suites/815/

That and the linter are the only relevant ones in this case.

[Trott]

Unfortunately, that still didn't quite work...

16:33:10 not ok 25 internet/test-uv-threadpool-schedule16:33:10 ---16:33:10 duration_ms: 0.21316:33:10 severity: fail16:33:10 exitcode: 116:33:10 stack: |-16:33:11 assert.js:35116:33:11 throw err;16:33:11 ^16:33:11 16:33:11 AssertionError [ERR_ASSERTION]: fast I/O took longer to complete, actual: 11, expected: 3.516:33:11 at GetAddrInfoReqWrap.onResolve (/home/iojs/build/workspace/node-test-commit-custom-suites/default/test/internet/test-uv-threadpool-schedule.js:41:12)16:33:11 at GetAddrInfoReqWrap.callback (/home/iojs/build/workspace/node-test-commit-custom-suites/default/test/common/index.js:376:15)16:33:11 at GetAddrInfoReqWrap.onlookup [as oncomplete] (dns.js:57:17)16:33:11 ...

[Trott]

OK, updated it again. This passes/fails as expected with different versions of Node.js with and without network connectivity.

CI (internet): https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-custom-suites/816/
CI (lite): https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request-lite-pipeline/2151/

[Trott]

That seemed to work that time. Collaborators, please 👍 here to fast-track to fix the node-daily-master job.

[Trott]

(Unrelated failure in the custom-suites run is fixed in #25365.)

[gireeshpunathil]

@Trott - I understand the rational behind this change, and may be the right thing to do eventually as well.

However, the relaxation of the expectation (fast I/O to finish at least in half time of that of slow I/O) seems (to me) to be too wide to be a determinant of the libuv function that this test tests.

For the failures, what confidence do we have in terms of the test calculation being too strict in a load-dependant environment versus libuv function failure?

In short, until someone (an SME) answering this key question, I am concerned that this change is just a peripheral remedy.

[Trott]

In short, until someone (an SME) answering this key question, I am concerned that this change is just a peripheral remedy.

As written, here are the things that would seem to significantly affect the test:

• network speed (or more generally, speed at which DNS queries get a response)
• network being enabled or disabled
• load on the machine
• I/O issues
• myriad environmental possibilities (e.g., if the directory being written to is NFS-mounted or not)

Given all that, "divide by 2" vs. "divide by 100" vs. "divide by some other magic number" is a matter of calibrating in the real world.

• With or without the libuv fix, divide-by-100 fails consistently for me locally and on CI.
• Divide-by-2 on the other hand fails for me consistently when the libuv fix is absent and passes for me consistently when the libuv fix is present. It also seems to pass in CI (although data set is smaller there). It also works as expected (fails without libuv fix, passes with libuv fix) when the network is disabled.

I think the real fix (and I think you've talked about this, or at least alluded to it) is to change the approach of the test to more reliably measure threadpool activity rather than take performance ratios as a proxy. And yeah, if a SME can weigh in on if that's possible and (if so) how to achieve it, that would definitely be better. @nodejs/libuv

But I think this is what makes sense for now based on real-world observations.

[gireeshpunathil]

@Trott - thanks for the detailed description and the reasons for the change. Based on your observations and my own experiments - especially

Divide-by-2 on the other hand fails for me consistently when the libuv fix is absent

gives me sufficient confidence that this change is valid.

I was only trying to reason with factual evidences, hope you did not consider my concerns as blockers.

[Trott]

I was only trying to reason with factual evidences, hope you did not consider my concerns as blockers.

Wasn't sure if it was blocking or not, but it certainly seemed reasonable! I always appreciate your comments.

[Trott]

Landed in 9987f1a