My plans to try jdk/submit have fallen through unfortunately, as I cannot seem to gain direct or indirect access to that system. So I guess I'm looking for any reviews on this patch now. Thomas has volunteered to sponsor. Thanks. On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:49 AM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe@gmail.com> wrote:
Here you go:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212828
If noone else steps in, I can sponsor the change for you.
Cheers, Thomas On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:19 PM David Lloyd <david.lloyd@redhat.com> wrote:
Sure. I don't have any tracking information on the bugreport one I submitted, but if you can track that down and promote it, it would save you some typing. Otherwise whatever you can do would be great, thanks. On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:02 AM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, I can open a bug report on JBS for you. Should I?
(Now I understand the "reuse bug id").
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:18 PM David Lloyd <david.lloyd@redhat.com> wrote:
I've submitted a bug report via bugreport.java.com. If/when it gets promoted to a proper JIRA with an issue number, I'll see if I can put the patch up on jdk/submit. On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:42 PM David Lloyd <david.lloyd@redhat.com> wrote:
The issue 6850720 isn't _exactly_ to use POSIX_SPAWN for process launching on Linux, but it's the closest I could find out of what are really a surprisingly large number of issues that refer to posix_spawn in one way or another relating to ProcessImpl. There's a different issue to move from vfork to posix_spawn on Solaris, but I wasn't sure if that one was quite right to hang this off of. Maybe it should be yet another issue of its own.
Anyway: this is a follow-up to the email thread entitled "Runtime.exec : vfork() concerns and a fix proposal", where it was casually mentioned that maybe posix_spawn could become an option on Linux, whereafter it could be thoroughly tested by brave individuals and eventually maybe become the default on that platform, obsoleting the vfork support for good.
The following patch does just that. I've tested it launching a multi-process WildFly instance a bunch of times, in conjunction with the conveniently existent "jdk.lang.Process.launchMechanism" property, and nothing exploded so here it is. The usual deal with git patches: apply directly through "patch -p1".
-- - DML