RFR: JDK-8212828 Allow POSIX_SPAWN to be used for ProcessImpl on Linux

[Thomas Stüfe]

For the convenience of the reviewers, here webrev and bug:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212828
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/JDK-8212828-posix_spawn.patch/webrev/

submit tests are currently running.

..Thomas

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:27 PM David Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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