RFR: 8062036: ConcurrentMarkThread::slt may be invoked before ConcurrentMarkThread::makeSurrogateLockerThread causing intermittent crashes

[Thomas Schatzl]

Hi,

On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 14:09 +0100, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
> Hi Kim,
> 
> On 11/10/14 10:26 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Bengt Rutisson <bengt.rutisson at oracle.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks for splitting the tests up. They look fine to me now. Except that now that they are specialized I guess they could be moved into the test/gc/cms and test/gc/g1 folders.
> > I thought about that, but felt that keeping the two closely related tests close together was better than separating them into the respective GC folders.
> >
> >> Is the  -XX:SurvivorAlignmentInBytes=2k really required for the test to fail without the patch? In that case I think it is not enough to ignore the test since I *think* Jon's idea to fix JDK-8060463 is to limit what values are allowed for SurvivorAlignmentInBytes. Jon would know more about that.
> > I talked to Jon, and he confirmed that limiting the permitted values
> > for SurvivorAlignmentInBytes to something sane was the intended
> > approach.  So that is indeed a problem for my regression test.  That
> > test was cribbed from the 8062036 reproducer.
> >
> > I have not yet been able to find an alternative trigger, though
> > searching for one has led to some interesting spelunking. Of course,
> > that doesn't mean there isn't an alternative; the number of options
> > and their possible interactions gives a pretty large search space.
> >
> > To trigger for G1 we need to somehow cause the concurrent mark thread
> > to perform a GC remark fairly early in VM initialization. My attempts
> > to create that situation have so far resulted in being too late to hit
> > the problematic window, or blowing up for other reasons (such as heap
> > size just being too small).
> >
> > Much as I think tests are a good thing, I'm getting to the point of
> > wondering whether a regression test for this is worth the effort.
> 
> Yes, I agree with you. We should probably just tag the bug with 
> noreg-hard and leave it for now. That also relieves us of the burden to 
> decide on which directory to put the tests in. ;)
> 
> Thanks for trying hard to fix the tests.
> 

Fine with me. Thanks for your effort.

Thanks,
Thomas