On 9/30/19 13:25, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 9/30/19 1:21 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thank you for reviewing this!
On 9/28/19 12:33, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi Serguei,
Overall looks good. A few questions:
I don't understand the need for all the 'i' and 'n' theatrics in the
shouldFinish loop. Can you explain and also add a comment?
I used this part from one of the old SuspendThreadList nsk tests in
the vmTestbase.
As I understand it, the point was to make sure the JVMTI
SuspendThreadList works well
wen the top frames executed on tested threads have been compiled.
These code is needed to make the run() method hot.
I can add a comment if you think it is not clear.
Is this comment right?
193 // set thread is not ready again
194 public void setAllThreadsReady() {
195 allThreadsReady = true;
196 }
Nice catch.
The comment is not needed anymore.
Is a leftover from previous test version.
Also, shouldn't "setAllThreadsReady()" be static?
Right. It has to be static. Will fix it.
Do you think it would be useful to also run the test with the last
thread in the list being the suspender thread?
I'm not sure it is worth to do it.
It'd add more complexity into the test.
We could try to make the suspender thread to be random though.
I don't think random is good. Makes it hard to reproduce an issue if
it turns up. I was thinking just rerun the test for each possible
suspender.
Good idea to rerun the test and pass the suspender thread index in the
arguments.
Do you think, two runs would be good enough or we also need an index
somewhere in the middle?
Thanks,
Serguei
thanks,
Chris
Thanks,
Serguei
thanks,
Chris
On 9/27/19 6:25 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Please, review fix for test enhancement:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8231595
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2019/8231595-jvmti-susp-tlist.1/
Summary:
New test is a coverage for the JVMTI bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8217762
SuspendThreadList won't work correctly if the current thread
is not last in the list
It provides a prove the bug JDK-8217762 does not exist
as the test is passed with the current implementation.
Thanks,
Serguei