RFR 8215050: [TESTBUG] serviceability/tmtools/jstack/WaitNotifyThreadTest.java fails when run with flag -Xcomp

[David Holmes]

Sorry please ignore - "off by one error" checking the CI results. This 
bug was fixed in 1097 and I was looking at 1096.

David

On 11/12/2018 2:50 pm, David Holmes wrote:
> <sigh> This is still failing in tier4:
> 
> Error: incorrect monitor info: locked, a java.lang.Object, 
> 0x000000078653eeb0
> Expected: locked, a java.lang.Object, no object reference available
> 
> Looks like the presence/absence of an address is contingent on other 
> things ??
> 
> "MyWaitingThread" #13 prio=5 os_prio=0 cpu=0.27ms elapsed=2.63s 
> tid=0x00007f522c009000 nid=0x62d0 in Object.wait()  [0x00007f526537d000]
>     java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (on object monitor)
> Thread: 0x00007f522c009000  [0x62d0] State: _at_safepoint 
> _has_called_back 0 _at_poll_safepoint 0
>     JavaThread state: _thread_blocked
>      at java.lang.Object.wait(java.base at 12-internal/Native Method)
>      - waiting on <no object reference available>
>      at java.lang.Object.wait(java.base at 12-internal/Object.java:328)
>      at WaitNotifyThreadTest$WaitThread.run(WaitNotifyThreadTest.java:80)
>      - locked <0x000000078653eeb0> (a java.lang.Object)
> 
> Or maybe there is a bug in the stack printing code thats printing the 
> information?
> 
> Filed: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215199
> 
> David
> -----
> 
> On 9/12/2018 9:21 am, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Patricio,
>>
>> On 9/12/2018 9:04 am, Patricio Chilano wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Could you review this small fix for test 
>>> serviceability/tmtools/jstack/WaitNotifyThreadTest.java ?
>>> After change 8214148 the test fails if the flag -Xcomp is used as 
>>> explained in the bug details. The proposed change is to identified 
>>> this special case and set the monitor address to match the one expected.
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pchilanomate/8215050.02/webrev/
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215050
>>>
>>> Run tier-4 where the test was failing and passed (the test was 
>>> failing on tier6 also because it uses -Xcomp too). Currently running 
>>> tiers1-3.
>>
>> Change seems fine. The lack of address must be something relatively 
>> new as I don't see it with Xcomp in JDK 9.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Patricio