Hi Patricio,
This seems very complicated and I'm not quite seeing how it all goes
together. The check for waiting to re-lock now seems to dominant the
test and obscure the original checks.
I'm not sure this is worthwhile in the context of this test. It might be
much simpler to just get rid of the existing "waiting to re-lock" check
which will not be seen and then if we really want to check that case add
a much simpler form that just checks for that.
To me the simplest way to see the "re-lock in wait" case is to just:
synchronized(obj) {
obj.notifyAll();
<= take stack dump here =>
}
Cheers,
David
On 30/11/2018 5:52 am, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Adding serviceability-dev@... since the 'tmtools' including 'jstack'
are owned by the Serviceability team.
Dan
On 11/28/18 4:21 PM, Patricio Chilano wrote:
Hi all,
Could you review this fix for test
serviceability/tmtools/jstack/WaitNotifyThreadTest.java?
On one hand the test was not properly checking what it was intended to
check, since as mentioned in JBS the logic for checking the method
name was wrong. Also since there was only one monitor in the test, the
"for" loop with the message "waiting to re-lock in wait()" was never
actually reached.
Additionally, with change 8150689 the message "waiting to re-lock in
wait()" is now shown in the frame where the relocking is actually
taking place, so the logic for checking that should change.
I fixed the first issues and added logic to check for the "waiting to
re-lock in wait()" case. I used the Thread.State attribute to check
desire states are reached before getting the thread dump reports
through jstack. I run the test in mach5 several times for all
platforms and they all passed.
Webrev URL: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8214148.01/webrev
Bug URL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214148
<https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8150689>
Thanks,
Patricio
