On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 04:51:36 GMT, Shiv Shah <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The sleeping thread tests had a hardcoded list of jdk methods for checking >> the stack trace so changes to Thread.sleep often required updating the >> tests. Now they only require the java.lang.Thread.sleep entry frame and >> ignore whatever sits above it while the callers below still go through the >> existing expected methods. Calls to getThreadInfo without an explicit >> maximum depth return no stack, so those paths skip the frame content check. >> >> strace001 samples running threads rather than sleeping threads, so it has no >> Thread.sleep frame to use as a boundary. Instead, it finds the innermost >> frame belonging to the test and ignores frames above it. Its stack length >> check now uses the requested depth plus the expected method count instead of >> the hardcoded depth + 7 estimate, and an unexpectedly empty snapshot now >> fails instead of passing accidentally. >> >> >> >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > Shiv Shah has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge > or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in > by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three additional commits since > the last revision: > > - Require the Thread.sleep entry frame instead of accepting any JDK frame > - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8340088-v2 > - 8340088: Stack tracing tests of sleeping thread should be more resilient > to code changes test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/monitoring/share/thread/SleepingThread.java line 110: > 108: log.info("No java.lang.Thread.sleep frame in stack trace > for: " + this); > 109: return false; > 110: } I don't know why you had to add this. Doesn't checkStackTraceElement with the limited expectedMethods only check for java.lang.Thread. I feel like this test infrastructure is overly complicated and should be reduced at every opportunity. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31357#discussion_r3843879526
