On 09/25/2014 12:13 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
I wonder if the p.waitFor() is needed? What if the process launching expired
with a timeout and now we are still waiting for the process to end - wouldn’t
that kind of defeat the timeout? In any case, the destroyForcibly() should end
the process whether we wait for it or not.
It would be wonderful but the javadoc states that the result of
destroyForcibly() call depends on the implementation and may actually
not force close the process and one should use waitFor() to make sure
that the process has in fact died.
I wonder whether JTReg kills the process tree on timeout - in case it
does using waitFor() would guarantee that there would be no zombies
left. Without using waitFor() and semantics of destroyForcibly() there
might be situations when non-functional stuck processes are left behind
(not sure how probable, however).
-JB-
/Staffan
On 25 sep 2014, at 11:54, Jaroslav Bachorik <jaroslav.bacho...@oracle.com>
wrote:
Please, review the following change to the JDK test library class
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8059034
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8059034/webrev.00
Currently, the ProcessTools.startProcess() might leave a dangling process
behind when a timeout or interrupt happens. The solution is to try and forcibly
terminate the forked process when this happens.
Thanks,
-JB-
