> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8135188/webrev.02
test/serviceability/dcmd/gc/RunFinalizationTest.java
No comments.
test/serviceability/dcmd/gc/FinalizationRunner.java
L58: o = new MyObject();
L59: o = null;
L79: o = new MyObject();
L80: o = null;
So now two different threads are initializing this static field:
55 public static MyObject o;
and both are clearing it. Is that just a left over
from simplifying the test?
Dan
On 10/12/15 2:00 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 9.10.2015 20:05, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik
<jaroslav.bacho...@oracle.com <mailto:jaroslav.bacho...@oracle.com>>
wrote:
On 8.10.2015 18:56, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Hi Jaroslav,
we all keep writing finalization code like this... welcome to
the club!
I think it would be better :
- never use currentTimeMillis to measure elapsed time; use
nanoTime instead
Ok. I suppose this would be because currentTimeMillis() is dependent
on the OS time, right?
- why use complex Phaser when simple CountDownLatch will do?
The logic is more complex than just waiting for the finalization to
happen. I need to make sure the finalization happened due to
GC.run_finalization command and not because of an ordinary GC run or
JVM shutdown. I will update the test comments to make this clear.
Oh, now I see what you're doing - you need to block the regular
finalizer thread to make sure there will be objects available for the
secondary finalizer thread to process. Although Phaser works for this,
I like using simple latches - CountDownLatch(1) - because they are
easier to understand.
CountDownLatch done = new CountDownLatch(1);
in primary finalizer thread, call done.await
in secondary finalizer thread, call done.countDown to release the
primary finalizer thread
Ok, I took a look at the test from distance and simplified it a bit.
Did a test run of 500 iterations in tight loop without failure.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8135188/webrev.02
-JB-
