RFR: JDK-8218166: [Graal] com/sun/jdi/SimulResumerTest.java failure

Daniel D. Daugherty daniel.daugherty at oracle.com
Fri Mar 15 19:03:31 UTC 2019


On 3/13/19 11:54 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
> One last set of diffs ...
>   - added comments on the ignored exceptions
>   - commented out excessive diagnostic print out
>      (this will remove the jtreg truncated output)
>
> Ok to use dan, dean and jc as reveiwers?
>
> diff --git a/test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/SimulResumerTest.java 
> b/test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/SimulResumerTest.java
> --- a/test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/SimulResumerTest.java
> +++ b/test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/SimulResumerTest.java
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>  /*
> - * Copyright (c) 2008, 2015, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights 
> reserved.
> + * Copyright (c) 2008, 2019, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights 
> reserved.
>   * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
>   *
>   * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> @@ -210,7 +210,9 @@
>                  }
>
>              } catch (IncompatibleThreadStateException ee) {
> -                // ignore
> +                // ignore checks if thread was not suspended

Perhaps:
                // If thread was not suspended then it is okay
                // to ignore this exception since we are racing.
> + } catch (ObjectCollectedException ee) {
> +                // ignore checks if thread was collected

Perhaps:
                // If thread was not suspended then it is okay
                // to ignore this exception from ownedMonitors()
                // since we are racing.

Thumbs up on the fix itself. I don't need to see another webrev
for any more comment changes.

Dan


> } catch (VMDisconnectedException ee) {
>                  // This is how we stop.  The debuggee runs to completion
>                  // and we get this exception.
> @@ -249,7 +251,7 @@
>                  public void run() {
>                      while (true) {
>                          iters++;
> -                        System.out.println("bkpts = " + bkpts + ", 
> iters = " + iters);
> +                        // System.out.println("bkpts = " + bkpts + ", 
> iters = " + iters);
>                          try {
>                              Thread.sleep(waitTime);
>                              check(debuggeeThread1);
>
>
>
> On 3/7/19, 8:19 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
>> While trying to reproduce the timeout reported in
>>   JDK-8000669: com/sun/jdi/SimulResumerTest.java times out
>>
>> I was unable to reproduce the timeout failure, but I did occasionally
>> see the ObjectCollectedException. The output from the test is very 
>> verbose
>> and may be the source of the occasional timeout. I'd like to close 
>> JDK-8000669
>> as cannot reproduce and if it shows up again look into limiting the 
>> amount
>> of non-essential output from the test.
>>
>> This is a racy test to begin with and it already is ignoring exceptions
>> due to unexpected thread states. Adding the ignore for 
>> ObjectCollectedException
>> allows the test to complete without errors.
>>
>> The graal label was recently removed. We should also remove it from 
>> the summary.
>>
>> Proposed changeset:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/SimulResumerTest.java 
>> b/test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/SimulResumerTest.java
>> --- a/test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/SimulResumerTest.java
>> +++ b/test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/SimulResumerTest.java
>> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>>  /*
>> - * Copyright (c) 2008, 2015, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All 
>> rights reserved.
>> + * Copyright (c) 2008, 2019, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All 
>> rights reserved.
>>   * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
>>   *
>>   * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
>> @@ -211,6 +211,8 @@
>>
>>              } catch (IncompatibleThreadStateException ee) {
>>                  // ignore
>> +            } catch (ObjectCollectedException ee) {
>> +                // ignore
>>              } catch (VMDisconnectedException ee) {
>>                  // This is how we stop.  The debuggee runs to 
>> completion
>>                  // and we get this exception.
>



More information about the serviceability-dev mailing list