RFR: 8170299: Debugger does not stop inside the low memory notifications code

[Chris Plummer]

On 7/31/19 11:50 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Daniil,
>
> On 25/07/2019 3:34 am, Daniil Titov wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Hope you had a great vacation!
>
> I did thank you. Apologies again for taking so long to get back to 
> this work.
>
>> Please find below the latest version of the change . The only 
>> difference from the version 01 is
>> the corrected ordering of include statements as Serguei suggested.
>>
>> Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8170299/webrev.02/
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170299
>
> I'm still remain concerned about introducing yet-another-thread to the 
> system. The potential interactions with other threads is not at all 
> clear.
>
> I'm also concerned that this thread has to be visible so that you can 
> debug the notification code, yet at the same time being visible makes 
> it vulnerable to application level actions that don't impact the 
> service thread - in particular if we suspend all threads then this 
> thread will be suspended too, if we resume a thread that triggers a 
> notification, the notification thread won't be able to respond to it 
> as it is suspended. The user won't know that they need to explicitly 
> resume this internal system thread.

This is indeed problematic, but it seems less of an issue than running 
java code on the service thread. BTW, are there any other cases where we 
run java code on the service thread? It seems running java code on a 
hidden thread is just asking for trouble. I assume if  you hit a 
breakpoint while doing this, it is simply ignored. Not exactly what the 
debugger user is expecting.

Chris

>
> Also note in serviceThread.cpp we have:
>
>  129       // This ThreadBlockInVM object is not also considered to be
>  130       // suspend-equivalent because ServiceThread is not visible to
>  131       // external suspension.
>  132
>  133       ThreadBlockInVM tbivm(jt);
>
> and you copied that across to notificationThread.cpp as:
>
>   93       // Need state transition ThreadBlockInVM so that this thread
>   94       // will be handled by safepoint correctly when this thread is
>   95       // notified at a safepoint.
>   96
>   97       ThreadBlockInVM tbivm(jt);
>
> so this will continue to not be a suspend-equivalent condition even 
> though this thread is visible and suspendible! So something seems 
> wrong there. I'm unclear why we need to use the ThreadBlockInVM rather 
> than defining the NotificationLock as a safepoint-checks-always lock, 
> rather than a safepoint-check-never lock? In fact with some recent 
> changes to locks I'm not even sure it is legal for the notification 
> thread to use a safepoint-check-never lock - have you re-based this 
> recently?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>> Thanks!
>> --Daniil
>>
>> On 7/3/19, 11:47 PM, "David Holmes" <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>      Hi Daniil,
>>           On 4/07/2019 1:04 pm, Daniil Titov wrote:
>>      > Please review the change the fixes the problem with the 
>> debugger not stopping in the low memory notification code.
>>      >
>>      > The problem here is that the ServiceThread that calls these 
>> MXBean listeners is hidden from the external view that prevents the 
>> debugger from stopping in it.
>>      >
>>      > The fix introduces new NotificationThread that is visible to 
>> the external view and offloads the ServiceThread from sending low 
>> memory and other notifications that could result in Java calls ( GC 
>> and diagnostic commands notifications) by moving these activities in 
>> this new NotificationThread.
>>           There is a long and unfortunate history with this bug.
>>           The original incarnation of this fix was introducing a new 
>> thread at the
>>      Java library level, and I had some concerns about that:
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2017-December/022612.html
>>           That effort was resurrected at:
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2018-July/024466.html
>>           and
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2018-August/024849.html
>>           but was left somewhat in limbo. There was a lot of doubt 
>> about the right
>>      way to fix this bug and whether introducing a new thread was too 
>> disruptive.
>>           But introducing a new thread in the VM also has the same 
>> set of
>>      concerns! This needs consideration by the runtime team before going
>>      ahead. Introducing a new thread likes this needs to be examined in
>>      detail - particularly the synchronization interactions with other
>>      threads. It also introduces another monitor designated 
>> safepoint-never
>>      at a time when we are in the process of cleaning up monitors so 
>> that
>>      JavaThreads will only use safepoint-check-always monitors.
>>           Unfortunately I'm about to head out for two weeks vacation, 
>> and a number
>>      of other key runtime folk are also on vacation. but I'd ask that 
>> you
>>      hold off on this until we can look at it in more detail.
>>           Thanks,
>>      David
>>      -----
>>           > Testing: Mach5 tier1,tier2 and tier3 tests succeeded.
>>      >
>>      > Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8170299/webrev.01/
>>      > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170299
>>      >
>>      > Thanks!
>>      > --Daniil
>>      >
>>      >
>>
>>