RFR: JDK-8216528: test/jdk/java/rmi/transport/runtimeThreadInheritanceLeak/RuntimeThreadInheritanceLeak.java failing with Xcomp

[Jie Fu]

Thanks David.

Could someone from core-libs help to review it?
Thanks.


On 2019/1/11 下午1:33, David Holmes wrote:
> On 11/01/2019 3:07 pm, Jie Fu wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Thank you very much. I'd like to choose option 2.
>> A test case is more valuable if it can be used for both interpreter 
>> and JIT tests.
>>
>> Here is the patch based on your comments.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>> diff -r 02e648ae46c3 
>> test/jdk/java/rmi/transport/runtimeThreadInheritanceLeak/RuntimeThreadInheritanceLeak.java 
>>
>> --- 
>> a/test/jdk/java/rmi/transport/runtimeThreadInheritanceLeak/RuntimeThreadInheritanceLeak.java 
>> Wed Jan 09 01:06:19 2019 +0100
>> +++ 
>> b/test/jdk/java/rmi/transport/runtimeThreadInheritanceLeak/RuntimeThreadInheritanceLeak.java 
>> Fri Jan 11 12:55:38 2019 +0800
>> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
>>    */
>>
>>   /* @test
>> - * @bug 4404702
>> + * @bug 4404702 8216528
>>    * @summary When the RMI runtime (lazily) spawns system threads 
>> that could
>>    * outlive the application context in which they were (happened to be)
>>    * created, such threads should not inherit (thread local) data 
>> specific to
>> @@ -106,7 +106,10 @@
>>                * context class loader-- by giving it a chance to pass 
>> away.
>>                */
>>               Thread.sleep(2000);
>> -            System.gc();
>> +            while (loaderRef.get() != null) {
>> +                System.gc();
>> +                Thread.sleep(100);
>> +            }
>>
>>               System.err.println(
>>                   "waiting to be notified of loader being weakly 
>> reachable...");
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>>
>> Could you please review it and give me some advice?
>
> Not sure what "advice" you are looking for?
>
> I have reviewed it - looks fine to me (and I tested it).
>
> But I want someone from core-libs to also review it and hopefully 
> sponsor it.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jie
>>
>>
>> On 2019/1/11 下午12:16, David Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>> I see three choices for you here :)
>>>
>>> 1. Don't try to run all tests under Xcomp but just stick to the 
>>> "core" sets of tests already tested by others.
>>>
>>> 2. Fix the given test as outlined. (I tested it on linux-x64 and it 
>>> fixed the problem.)
>>>
>>> 3. Exclude the given test from Xcomp by adding: @requires 
>>> vm.compMode != "Xcomp"
>>>
>>> If you chose options 2 or 3 please update the @bug line with 8216528.
>>>
>>> The core-libs folk may have more to say here and they will need to 
>>> provide a sponsor for the commit.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>> -----
>>