RFR: JDK-8031445: Attach on windows can fail with java.io.IOException: All pipe instances are busy

[gary.adams at oracle.com]

On 2/7/18 3:19 PM, gary.adams at oracle.com wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> I don't think you intended to include the ProblemList.txt changes in
> your webrev.
You are right. I was also looking at JDK-8057732 in the same workspace.
I believe there may have been a windows-x86 issue that may no longer
be an issue.
>
> I think your changes address the "java.io.IOException: CreateNamedPipe
> failed" failures if a name collision is the cause. This failure mode was
> extremely rare (only 3 sightings), and if due to a collision, a single
> retry should suffice in making it not appear again in our lifetime.
> However, I don't think this addresses the "java.io.IOException: All pipe
> instances are busy" issue, which seems to the more common failures mode,
> although also very rare. Have you looked into its potential cause?
Unfortunately, we no longer have the stack traces from the earlier test 
failures.
The one stack trace we do have comes from this same native call to 
createNamedPipe.

I have not been able to reproduce any of the original reported errors, yet.
If this is a question of a heavily loaded system contending for a limit 
number
of named pipes, the retry should address a number of those race conditions.
We could also introduce a delay before the retry in case an older 
process is exiting
and not getting enough cycles to complete.

Since we're talking about attach operations, I don't think we'll see this
issue failing in real life situations.
> thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On 2/7/18 8:51 AM,gary.adams at oracle.com 
> <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/serviceability-dev>  wrote:
> >/The IOException that is observed when creating a new named pipe />/when the pipe already exists and is in use, recommends to retry />/the operation later. Since we are already using a random number />/to generate a unique pipe name, it makes sense to simply />/retry the operation with a new pipe name. />//>/Here is a proposed fix. Testing in progress. />//>/  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8031445 />/  Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gadams/8031445/ 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Egadams/8031445/> />//>//


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20180207/3d8c848e/attachment.html>