RFR(s): 8210303: VM_HandshakeAllThreads fails assert with "failed: blocked and not walkable"
Robbin Ehn
robbin.ehn at oracle.com
Thu Oct 4 11:49:25 UTC 2018
Hi Dan,
On 03/10/2018 18:42, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> On 10/3/18 7:42 AM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Notice that I missed the extended suspend case:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8210303/v2/full/
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/handshake.cpp
> Don't forget to update copyright before pushing.
Fixed!
>
> L351: if (target->is_ext_suspended()) {
> L352: return true;
> The handshake can only be processed for a JavaThread with
> is_ext_suspended() == true when the Threads_lock is held.
> So you need:
>
> assert(Threads_lock->owned_by_self(), "Not holding Threads_lock.");
>
> at the top of the function (like you have in
> HandshakeState::vmthread_can_process_handshake()).
>
> You should also add a comment above L352:
>
> // An externally suspended thread cannot be resumed while the
> // Threads_lock is held so it is safe.
Since this method is allowed to produce false positives I extend the comment to:
+ // An externally suspended thread cannot be resumed while the
+ // Threads_lock is held so it is safe.
+ // Note that this method is allowed to produce false positives.
+ assert(Threads_lock->owned_by_self(), "Not holding Threads_lock.");
Hope that's fine.
>
> L354: switch(target->thread_state()) {
> Nit - please add space before '('
Fixed!
>
> Thumbs up! I don't need to see a new webrev for the above tweaks.
Thanks!
Passed t1-5.
/Robbin
>
> Dan
>
>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8210303/v2/inc/
>>
>> Re-running sanity with t1-5 on this.
>>
>> Thanks, Robbin
>>
>> On 10/3/18 1:10 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>>> Hi all, please review.
>>>
>>> VM thread checks if it can processes a handshake for a JavaThread. That
>>> check will only return a stable value if the VM thread holds the handshake
>>> semaphore (or at safepoint). To avoid an unnecessary grabbing of the semaphore
>>> just to release it, the VM thread do an early check to see if there is any point
>>> to do the stable check. But the method SafepointSynchronize::safepoint_safe() is
>>> not suppose to handle unstable checks. This can causes a false positive from an
>>> assert in safepoint_safe().
>>>
>>> This change-set adds a local function for doing the unstable check without
>>> asserts. I do not want to expose a generic method for doing unstable
>>> safepoint safe test.
>>>
>>> Since asserts are not in release builds, there is no indication of a bug in JDK
>>> 11. But since 11 is a LTS, this should also be considered for back-porting.
>>>
>>> Note, in JDK 11 only ZGC uses handshakes, previously releases have no users
>>> of handshakes.
>>>
>>> Webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8210303/webrev/index.html
>>>
>>> Bug:
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210303
>>>
>>> I could not reproduce it, sanity with t1-3 + handshake tests.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Robbin
>
More information about the jdk-updates-dev
mailing list