RFR(s): 8212828: (process) Change the Process launch mechanism default on Linux to be posix_spawn

[Roger Riggs]

Hi Thomas,

The CI tests here ran fine.

Overall looks ok.

Regards, Roger


On 02/06/2019 01:16 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 4:15 PM Roger Riggs <Roger.Riggs at oracle.com 
> <mailto:Roger.Riggs at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Thomas,
>
>     On 02/06/2019 04:29 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>     Hi all
>>
>>     Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213192
>>     webrev:
>>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8213192--(process)-change-the-process-launch-mechanism-default-on-linux-to-be-posix_spawn/webrev.00/webrev/index.html
>>     <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Estuefe/webrevs/8213192--%28process%29-change-the-process-launch-mechanism-default-on-linux-to-be-posix_spawn/webrev.00/webrev/index.html>
>>
>>     (@Roger: I hope you do not mind? The bug is assigned to you but
>>     since I happened to play around with posix_spawn I prepared this
>>     webrev. If you rather do this change, that is fine and I will
>>     leave it to you.)
>     no problem, I hadn't gotten to it.  Thanks for proposing it.
>>
>>     When we added the possibility to use posix_spawn as underlying
>>     implementation for Runtime.exec() on Linux with
>>     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212828, we agreed to
>>     keep VFORK as default until work on 13 starts. So now would be a
>>     good time to switch the default to posix_spawn to get a good
>>     testing window. Note that at SAP we run our VMs internally with
>>     posix_spawn as default since some months and have not seen problems.
>>
>>     As for the fix, I added a test which tests that the default is
>>     indeed posix_spawn - not sure whether this is overdoing it
>>     though. Also, I use strace for the test, and /bin/true, and while
>>     strace is usually available and reachable by path resolution, I
>>     am afraid on some test machines it may not. What do you think,
>>     should I leave the test out?
>     The test is a bit quirky but should work ok.
>     I'd leave it in until it fails and re-evaluate then.
>
>     If it fails on some systems, we can either configure them out or
>     just skip the test if the process launch of strace fails. (Throw
>     SkippedException).
>>
> Yes, that makes sense.
>
>>     The fix ran through all java/lang/ProcessBuilder jtreg tests ok.
>     I'll run the patch through the usual CI build here too.
>
>
> Thanks. I'll run the test thru the submit repository too.
>
> Cheers, Thomas
>
>     Thanks, Roger
>
>>
>>     Thanks, Thomas
>>
>