Hi Serguei,
Looks good.
The only note:
(libSuspendWithCurrentThread.cpp)
115 check_jvmti_status(jni, err, "resumeTestedThreads: error in
ResumeThreadList");
This check in a cycle looks useless.
No need for new webrev.
--alex
On 09/30/2019 22:45, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Chris, David and Alex,
The updated webrev is:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2019/8231595-jvmti-susp-tlist.2/
It includes the changes:
- added a general comment explaining the test logic suggested by David
- setAllThreadsReady() is static now, the obsolete comment before it
is deleted
- now the test is run twice: with the suspender thread first and last
in the list
- removed the local variable "success" in the run() method
- several native agent methods return "void" now
Thanks,
Serguei
On 9/30/19 13:49, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 9/30/19 1:30 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
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?
Maybe just first and last indices would be good. I'm not sure
something in the middle helps any.
Chris
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
