On 09/25/2014 12:33 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
On 25 sep 2014, at 12:24, Jaroslav Bachorik <jaroslav.bacho...@oracle.com>
wrote:
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.
It also mentions that Processes returned by ProcessBuilder.start() will be
terminated forcibly so we can rely on that. I don’t know how much it helps to
wait for the process. If it wasn’t terminated, then we risk blocking forever
here - still without having terminated the process.
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).
JTreg currently has no process tree handling - there is work in progress to add
it as it is clearly desirable.
Ok. These are valid reasons for not using waitFor() -
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8059034/webrev.01
-JB-
/Staffan
-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-
