On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 11:52:38 GMT, Stefan Karlsson <stef...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> In the rewrites made for:
>> [JDK-8318757](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8318757) `VM_ThreadDump 
>> asserts in interleaved ObjectMonitor::deflate_monitor calls`
>> 
>> I removed the filtering of *owned ObjectMonitors with dead objects*. The 
>> reasoning was that you should never have an owned ObjectMonitor with a dead 
>> object. I added an assert to check this assumption. It turns out that the 
>> assumption was wrong *if* you use JNI to call MonitorEnter and then remove 
>> all references to the locked object.
>> 
>> The provided tests provoke this assert form:
>> * the JNI thread detach code
>> * thread dumping with locked monitors, and
>> * the JVMTI GetOwnedMonitorInfo API.
>> 
>> While investigating this we've found that the thread detach code becomes 
>> more correct when this filter was removed. Previously, the locked monitors 
>> never got unlocked because the ObjectMonitor iterator never exposed these 
>> monitors to the JNI detach code that unlocks the thread's monitors. That bug 
>> caused an ObjectMonitor leak. So, for this case I'm leaving these 
>> ObjectMonitors unfiltered so that we don't reintroduce the leak.
>> 
>> The thread dumping case doesn't tolerate ObjectMonitor with dead objects, so 
>> I'm filtering those in the closure that collects ObjectMonitor. Side note: 
>> We have discussions about ways to completely rewrite this by letting each 
>> thread have thread-local information about JNI held locks. If we have this 
>> we could probably throw away the entire ObjectMonitorDump hashtable, and its 
>> walk of the `_in_use_list.`.
>> 
>> For GetOwnedMonitorInfo it is unclear if we should expose these weird 
>> ObjectMonitor. If we do, then the users can detect that a thread holds a 
>> lock with a dead object, and the code will return NULL as one of the "owned 
>> monitors" returned. I don't think that's a good idea, so I'm filtering out 
>> these ObjectMonitor for those calls.
>> 
>> Test: the written tests with and without the fix. Tier1-Tier3, so far.
>
> Stefan Karlsson has updated the pull request incrementally with one 
> additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Tweak test comments

Build changes are trivially fine.

-------------

Marked as reviewed by ihse (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16783#pullrequestreview-1746557040

Reply via email to