Patch review request - Test bug 7123972 test/java/lang/annotation/loaderLeak/Main.java fails intermittently

[Stuart Marks]

I've posted the updated webrev here:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/yiming.wang/7123972/webrev.1/

This code is pretty much the same as 6948101 and the same comments I had on 
that bug apply here as well, so please make similar updates to this one.

Thanks.

s'marks

On 6/29/12 1:36 AM, Eric Wang wrote:
> Hi Stuart & David，
>
> Attachment is the new changes to make code simply by following David
> suggestion, Can you help please review again, Thanks a lot!
>
> Regards,
> Eric
> On 2012/6/28 12:40, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> I've posted the webrev here:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/yiming.wang/7123972/webrev.0/
>>
>> I've looked at the changes and they seem fine.
>>
>> It's interesting that the run times take 30-60 sec in your experience. I've
>> run them on my system (Linux in a virtual machine) and they usually run in
>> 10-20 sec. In any case, as you say, if the test times out it indicates there
>> really was a failure.
>>
>> I'll give people a chance to look at the webrev and if there aren't any more
>> comments in another day or so I'll push in the changeset.
>>
>> Thanks for developing this!
>>
>> s'marks
>>
>> On 6/26/12 11:50 PM, Eric Wang wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Thank you! I run the test several times on 3 platforms (windows, solaris and
>>> linux), the average execution time is 30secs to 60secs. if the test hang 2
>>> minutes, there should be something wrong.
>>>
>>> Hi Marks,
>>>
>>> I don't have the author role, Can you please help to review and post the webrev
>>> 7123972.zip in attachment if it is OK, Thanks a lot!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> On 2012/6/27 14:19, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> Eric,
>>>>
>>>> Ignore my comment about adding the timeouts. As Alan reminded me if the test
>>>> would hang then jtreg will time it out after two minutes anyway.
>>>>
>>>> So this is good to go as far as I am concerned.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On 27/06/2012 7:51 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Eric.
>>>>>
>>>>> So to summarize:
>>>>>
>>>>> - we create a custom classloader, load a class through it and store a
>>>>> reference to that Class in a WeakReference
>>>>> - we then drop the reference to the loader
>>>>>
>>>>> At this point the only reference to the loader is from the Class loaded,
>>>>> which in turn is only weakly reachable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I must confess that I'm unclear why this test should be failing in its
>>>>> original form. The first gc() should remove the strong reference to the
>>>>> loader. That leaves a weak cycle: WeakRef -> Class -> Loader -> Class.
>>>>> The second gc() should detect the cycle and clear the WeakRef. I guess
>>>>> the problem is that depending on which gc is in use the actual gc()
>>>>> calls may not in fact induce every possible GC action.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fix seems reasonable in that regard - keep gc'ing and finalizing
>>>>> till we see the loader is gone, and so the WeakReference should be
>>>>> cleared. The original bug would cause a ref to the Class to remain (from
>>>>> the annotation) and hence the WeakRef would not be cleared. However, in
>>>>> that case the loader would also be strongly referenced and so never
>>>>> become finalizable. So if this test was now run against a JDK with the
>>>>> original bug, the test would hang. So I think we need to add a timeout
>>>>> in there as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25/06/2012 6:06 PM, Eric Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2012/6/21 20:16, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21/06/2012 8:57 PM, Eric Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your review, I have updated the code by following your
>>>>>>>> suggestion. please see the attachment.
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure whether there's a better way to guarantee object finalized
>>>>>>>> by GC definitely within the given time. The proposed fix may work in
>>>>>>>> most cases but may still throw InterruptException if execution is
>>>>>>>> timeout (2 minutes of JTreg by default).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no way to guarantee finalization in a specific timeframe, but
>>>>>>> if a simple test hasn't executed finalizers in 2 minutes then that in
>>>>>>> itself indicates a problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you post a full webrev for this patch? I don't like seeing it out
>>>>>>> of context and am wondering exactly what we are trying to GC here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Eric
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2012/6/21 14:32, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 21/06/2012 4:05 PM, Eric Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I come from Java SQE team who are interested in regression test bug
>>>>>>>>>> fix.
>>>>>>>>>> Here is the first simple fix for bug 7123972
>>>>>>>>>> <http://monaco.us.oracle.com/detail.jsf?cr=7123972>, Can you please
>>>>>>>>>> help
>>>>>>>>>> to review and comment? Attachment is the patch Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This bug is caused by wrong assumption that the GC is started
>>>>>>>>>> immediately to recycle un-referenced objects after System.gc() called
>>>>>>>>>> one or two times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The proposed solution is to make sure the un-referenced object is
>>>>>>>>>> recycled by GC before checking if the reference is null.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your patch makes its own assumptions - specifically that finalization
>>>>>>>>> must eventually run. At a minimum you should add
>>>>>>>>> System.runFinalization() calls after the System.gc() inside the loop.
>>>>>>>>> Even that is no guarantee in a general sense, though it should work
>>>>>>>>> for hotspot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Eric
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Alan & David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your comments, sorry for reply this mail late as i was
>>>>>> just back from the dragon boat holiday.
>>>>>> I have updated the code again based on your suggestions: rename the flag
>>>>>> variable, increase the sleep time and remove it from problem list.
>>>>>> The attachment is the full webrev for this patch, Can you please review
>>>>>> again? Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Eric
>>>
>