Hi David,
On 12/3/18 2:14 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Patricio,
On 1/12/2018 2:31 am, Patricio Chilano wrote:
Hi David,
On 11/29/18 8:05 PM, David Holmes wrote:
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.
Ok, I actually had similar thoughts while I was adding the extra
code. Here is the new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8214148.02/webrev/
I removed the check for the "waiting to re-lock" case.
Good - the more I look at this test the more I see the "waiting to
re-lock" case is just not relevant to it.
The addition of the code to wait until the target thread is in the
right state seems good.
I'm unclear on some of the changes to the checking code in
analyzeThreadStackWaiting. It seems you removed the code that watched
for finding the wrong monitor and replaced that with a call to
assertMonitorInfo. But the latter is passed the address you got from
the MonitorInfo in the first place so the check of the address is
never going to fail. ??
I just replaced that "if-else" with assertMonitorInfo() because the same
check "monInfo.getType().equals("waiting on") &&
compareMonitorClass(monInfo)" will be done in assertMonitorInfo() and
the error case is also doing the same, so the code gets simplified. Yes,
the extra address check will never fail.
That said you can't be waiting on two monitors so I don't see how we
can ever have the wrong one ??
I'm not sure why this test is checking for the monitor address in
assertMonitorInfo(). The only case where I see it could fail is for the
RUN_METHOD case if the address is null, but that has a separate check
before assertMonitorInfo(). Maybe at some point the test had more
monitors, because there was also that "for" loop checking for the
"waiting to re-lock in wait()" case. I can remove the test
"monInfo.getMonitorAddress().equals(monitorAddress)" in
assertMonitorInfo() but I don't think it hurts to keep it.
A few minor style nits:
Pre-existing:
54 //Notify the waiting thread, so it stops waiting and
sleeps
Please add a space after //
106 // Start athread that just waits
s/athread/a thread/
145 throw new RuntimeException(OBJECT_WAIT
146 + " method has to contain one lock
record but it contains " + mi.getLocks().size());
Indentation is wrong - the '+' should align with the O in OBJECT.
Break into three lines (at second + if needed)
New:
154 if(mi.getLocks().size() == 1){
Space after "if", and space before {
157 else{
Space before {
158 throw new RuntimeException(RUN_METHOD + "
method has to contain one lock record but it contains "
159 +
mi.getLocks().size());
Incorrect indentation - '+' should align with R in RUN
Done!
I'm not sure if it's okay to keep the change to
serviceability/tmtools/jstack/utils/DefaultFormat.java then. It
doesn't really affect this test, but it is needed for jstack to
detect the locks that appear in the stack report with the message
"waiting to re-lock in wait()".
I'd probably revert that change at this stage.
Done!
Here is the new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8214148.03/webrev/
Thanks,
Patricio
Thanks,
David
Thanks,
Patricio
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
