RFR: 8339538: Wrong timeout computations in DnsClient [v5]

[Mark Sheppard]

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 22:29:23 GMT, Aleksei Efimov <aefimov at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This PR proposes the following changes to address wrong timeout computations in the `com.sun.jndi.dns.DnsClient`:
>> - The `DnsClient` has been updated to use a monotonic high-resolution (nano) clock. The existing `Timeout` test has also been updated to use the nano clock to measure observed timeout value.
>> 
>> - The left timeout computation has been fixed to decrease the timeout value during each retry attempt. A new test, `TimeoutWithEmptyDatagrams`, has been added to test it.
>> 
>> - The `DnsClient.blockingReceive` has been updated:
>>     - to detect if any data is received
>>     - to avoid contention with `Selector.close()` that could be called by a cleaner thread
>> 
>> - The expected timeout calculation in the `Timeout` test has been updated to take into account the minimum retry timeout (50ms). Additionally, the max allowed difference between the observed timeout and the expected one has been increased from 50% to 67%. Taking into account 50 ms retry timeout decrease the maximum allowed difference is effectively set to 61%. This change is expected to improve the stability of the `Timeout` test which has been seen to fail [intermittentlly](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8220213). If no objections, I'm planning to close [JDK-8220213](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8220213) as duplicate of this one.
>> 
>> JNDI/DNS jtreg tests has been executed multiple times (500+) to check if the new and the modified tests are stable. No failures been observed (so far?).
>
> Aleksei Efimov has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Measure time the caller spent waiting. Simplify timeoutLeft computation

src/jdk.naming.dns/share/classes/com/sun/jndi/dns/DnsClient.java line 442:

> 440:                 // use 1L below to ensure conversion to long and avoid potential
> 441:                 // integer overflow (timeout is an int).
> 442:                 // no point in supporting timeout > Integer.MAX_VALUE, clamp if needed

if I have read this correctly,  timeout is of type int, thus int Math.clamp(int, int, int) is being called returning type int and promoting to long. Are the any side effects to consider here?  And as timeoutLeft (or remainingTimeout) and pktTimeout were both int and now is type long, then why have timeout declared as type  int ?

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20892#discussion_r1751619463