RFR: 8168414 Various timeouthandler fixes

[David Holmes]

On 20/10/2016 11:44 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>
>> On 20 Oct 2016, at 15:41, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 20/10/2016 11:27 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>>> When looking for some timeout handler problems I found a few things that should be fixed:
>>>
>>> * Strange use of Thread.currentThread().interrupt()
>>
>> That isn't "strange" it is an idiomatic usage - if you can't propagate the InterruptedException to show your caller you have been interrupted then you re-assert the interrupt state.
>
> OK, then. In this case it is less “strange” than “wrong”. The cases where this is done should not propagate the interrupt state - it only serves to throw unexpected exceptions higher up in the call-chain.

If code higher up the call chain can not handle being interrupted and 
interrupt is being used within the program to signal cancellation, then 
it is the higher up code that has a problem. As I said the existing code 
is an idiomatic approach to dealing with cancellation requests.

Cheers,
David

>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>> * Add logging for timeouts
>>> * Milliseconds sometimes printed as microseconds or nanoseconds
>>> * Should use destroyForcibly() to terminate processes
>>> * No need to sleep in the last iteration when running a command multiple times
>>> * Disable timeout handling timeouts since we do that ourselves
>>>
>>> I didn’t want to file individual bugs for all of these, so I have lumped them together in one bug.
>>>
>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168414 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168414>webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8168414/webrev.00 <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8168414/webrev.00>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> /Staffan
>>>
>