Hi Gary,
receiveReply(startPos, false, 0)
calls
waitForPrompt(startPos, compoundPromptOnly, count);
and waitForPrompt has:
if (count <= 0) {
throw new TestBug("Wrong number of prompts count in
Jdb.waitForPrompt(): " + count);
}
So We will get "Wrong number of prompts count" failure?
--alex
On 09/28/2018 04:47, Gary Adams wrote:
Revised webrev:
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gadams/8208473/webrev.01/
The final fix includes
- updated the timeout for the test (should handle sparc debug
slowness)
- wait for explicit prompts from cont command (avoids confusion
from "int[2]")
- fixed a typo in an exclude pattern ("jdk.*")
- on wait for message timeout, don't wait for prompt
when dumping current
Should have another reviewer in addition to Chris.
On 9/27/18, 3:12 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
The extra check after timing out doesn't seem like it should help.
You've already called findMessage() 2100 times at 200ms intervals. Why
would one more call after that help? I think it might be the
receiveReply() call that is fixing it. It does a waitForPrompt(), so
this probably gives us another 420000 ms for the prompt to come in.
This call to receiveReply() is actually a bug itself since we are
doing it just to print the current buffer, not the buffer after
waiting for a prompt to come in.
In any case, looks like this prompt is taking more than 420200
milliseconds to come in, but does eventually come in, and extra
waiting in receiveReply() is what is causing you to eventually see the
prompt. I think bumping up the timeout to 600 and the waittime to 10
is the proper fix here.
And to address the receiveReply() issue, I'd suggest calling it using
receiveReply(startPos, false, 0), where 0 is the prompt count, and
have receiveReply() not wait for a prompt when the count is 0.
Chris
On 9/27/18 11:44 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
Speaking of not being bullet proof, during testing of the fix to
wait for a specific prompt an intermittent failure was observed.
...
Sending command: trace methods 0x2a9
reply[0]: MyThread-0[1]
Sending command: cont
WARNING: message not recieved: MyThread-0[1]
Remaining debugger output follows:
reply[0]:>
reply[1]: Method exited: return value =<void value>,
"thread=MyThread-0", nsk.jdb.exclude.exclude001.MyThread.run(),
line=93 bci=14
reply[2]: 93 }
reply[3]:
reply[4]: MyThread-0[1]
# ERROR: Caught unexpected exception while executing the test:
nsk.share.Failure: Expected message not received during 420200
milliseconds:
...
The wait for message times out looking for "MyThread-0[1]".
A WARNING is printed and the "remaining debugger output"
shows that "MyThread-0[1]" is in the buffer.
I'm still investigating why the message match is not found.
Adding a final check before failing the wait for message
seems to workaround the problem.
diff --git a/test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/jdb/Jdb.java
b/test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/jdb/Jdb.java
--- a/test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/jdb/Jdb.java
+++ b/test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/jdb/Jdb.java
@@ -515,10 +515,11 @@
long delta = 200; // time in milliseconds to wait at every
iteration.
long total = 0; // total time has waited.
long max =
getLauncher().getJdbArgumentHandler().getWaitTime() * 60 * 1000; //
maximum time to wait.
+ int found = 0;
Object dummy = new Object();
while ((total += delta) <= max) {
- int found = 0;
+ found = 0;
// search for message
{
@@ -553,6 +554,12 @@
log.display("WARNING: message not recieved: " + message);
log.display("Remaining debugger output follows:");
receiveReply(startPos);
+
+ // One last chance
+ found = findMessage(startPos, message);
+ if (found > 0) {
+ return found;
+ }
throw new Failure("Expected message not received during " +
total + " milliseconds:"
+ "\n\t" + message);
}
On 9/20/18, 5:47 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
Looks good. Still not bullet proof, but I'm not sure it's possible
to write tests like this in a way that will work no matter what
output is produced by the method enter/exit events.
Chris
On 9/20/18 10:59 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
The test failure has been identified due to the "int[2]"
being misrecognized as a compound prompt. This caused a cont
command to be sent prematurely.
The proposed fix waits for the correct prompt before
advancing to the next command.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gadams/8208473/webrev/
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208473
Testing is in progress.
