[8u] RFR: 8249677: Regression after JDK-8237117: Better ForkJoinPool behavior

[Andrew Hughes]

On 23/07/2020 17:58, Anton Kozlov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 23.07.2020 17:54, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>> On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 11:46 -0300, Martin Balao wrote:
>>>
>>> Even though your Webrev.03 patch has been reviewed and
>>> maintainer-approved, I believe we should revisit the 'testDefault'
>>> decision before pushing. It's not clear to me yet whether 'testDefault'
>>> behaviour will be 'expected' or 'unexpected'. In any case, that will be
>>> addressed in the context of 8249846 [1].
>>
>> Yes, agreed.
>>
>> To proceed with this fix I suggest the following: Please remove
>> testDefault code and references to 8249846
>> from test/java/util/concurrent/forkjoin/AccessControlContext.java
>> It wouldn't be the right call to commit that under 8249677. The test
>> and the fix (if any) should come with the changeset for 8249846.
> 
> I personally don't have a strict opinion about the test case.
> I specifies the behavior of 8u262, I don't think it is certainly 
> wrong to have one before 8249846.
> 
> For simplicity of logistics, we can remove the case until resolution 
> for 8249846. Not sure what we'll decide for the test case if we also 
> decide not to fix 8249846. But this is not really important now, I agree.
> New webrev with proposed changes:
> 
>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~akozlov/8249677/webrev.04/
> 
> I would like Andrew to acknowledge he have seen the new revision, to avoid
> missing expectations.
> 
> Thanks,
> Anton
> 

I discussed this with Martin yesterday evening. I'd prefer we went with
webrev.03 and then separately inverted the test to make it absolutely
clear that, at present, the new behaviour is the expected behaviour.

If we omit the test for 8249846, and that is then later closed as
WONTFIX, we risk losing the testcase for this behaviour.

I also don't see it as wrong to have a test for 8249846 included here.

I've pushed the fix following the merge of 8u262-ga:

https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/jdk/rev/4eca7c32a9c8

I'll follow up shortly with a patch for the test to match the current
behaviour.

Thanks,
-- 
Andrew :)

Senior Free Java Software Engineer
OpenJDK Package Owner
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222