GH-43412: [Java][Benchmarking] Use JDK_JAVA_OPTIONS for JVM arguments

[danepitkin]

Rationale for this change

Java options are not getting picked up properly in archery.

What changes are included in this PR?

• Use JDK_JAVA_OPTIONS instead of _JAVA_OPTIONS env var.

Are these changes tested?

Test via benchmark bot (ursabot)

Are there any user-facing changes?

No

• GitHub Issue: [Java][Benchmarking] Java benchmarks are still broken when running with Java 17+ #43412

[github-actions]

Thanks for opening a pull request!

If this is not a minor PR. Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub? https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose

Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the Openness of the Apache Arrow project.

Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format?

GH-${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}

or

MINOR: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}

In the case of PARQUET issues on JIRA the title also supports:

PARQUET-${JIRA_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}

See also:

• Other pull requests
• Contribution Guidelines - Contributing Overview

[danepitkin]

@ursabot please benchmark lang=Java

[ursabot]

Benchmark runs are scheduled for commit 4309d3f. Watch https://buildkite.com/apache-arrow and https://conbench.ursa.dev for updates. A comment will be posted here when the runs are complete.

[github-actions]

⚠️ GitHub issue #43412 has been automatically assigned in GitHub to PR creator.

[danepitkin]

The JVM arg is getting picked up now, according to logs: https://buildkite.com/apache-arrow/arrow-bci-benchmark-on-ec2-m5-4xlarge-us-east-2/builds/5035

[vibhatha]

The issue is _JAVA_OPTIONS being used as the environment variable instead here JAVA_OPTIONS?
I am just thinking how did this work previously? Didn't picked up at all?

[danepitkin]

It was an undocumented Java 8 option. In Java 9+, it switched to JDK_JAVA_OPTIONS 😅

[conbench-apache-arrow]

Thanks for your patience. Conbench analyzed the 2 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on PR commit 4309d3f.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details.

[vibhatha]

Thanks Dane. LGTM!

[conbench-apache-arrow]

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit e2d4dbf.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 5 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.