RFR(s): 8243451: nsk.share.jdi.Debugee.isJFR_active() is incorrect and corresponsing logic seems to be broken

[Fairoz Matte]

Hi Serguei, Erik,

 

Thanks for the reviews,

Below webrev contains the suggested changes, 

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fmatte/8243451/webrev.08/

 

The only thing I couldn’t do is to keep the local copy of isJFRActive() in HeapwalkingDebugger, 

The method is called in debugee code.

In debugger, we have access to debugee before test started or after test completes.

isJFRActive() method need to be executed during the test execution. Hence I didn’t find place to initialize and cannot make local copy.

 

Thanks,

Fairoz

 

From: Serguei Spitsyn 
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 7:57 AM
To: Fairoz Matte <fairoz.matte at oracle.com>; Erik Gahlin <erik.gahlin at oracle.com>
Cc: serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: RFR(s): 8243451: nsk.share.jdi.Debugee.isJFR_active() is incorrect and corresponsing logic seems to be broken

 

On 6/1/20 12:30, HYPERLINK "mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com"serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:

Hi Fairoz,

It looks okay in general.
But I'm not sure this check is going to work.
The problem is the HeapwalkingDebuggee.useStrictCheck method is invoked in the
context of the HeapwalkingDebugger process, not the HeapwalkingDebuggee process.


Probably, you wanted to get this bit of information from the Debuggee process.
The debuggee has to evaluate it itself and store in some field.
The debugger should use the JDI to get this value from the debuggee.

Thanks,
Serguei




I'm not sure, what exactly you wanted to do here.
It can occasionally work for you as long as both processes are run with the same options.

Thanks,
Serguei


On 6/1/20 08:52, Fairoz Matte wrote:

Hi Erik,
 
Thanks for the review, below is the updated webrev.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fmatte/8243451/webrev.02/
 
Thanks,
Fairoz
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Gahlin
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 4:26 PM
To: Fairoz Matte HYPERLINK "mailto:fairoz.matte at oracle.com"<fairoz.matte at oracle.com>
Cc: HYPERLINK "mailto:serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net"serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: RFR(s): 8243451: nsk.share.jdi.Debugee.isJFR_active() is incorrect
and corresponsing logic seems to be broken
 
Hi Fairoz,
 
What I think you need to do is something like this:
 
         if (className.equals("java.lang.Thread")) {
             return !isJfrInitialized();
         }
 
...
 
     private static boolean isJfrInitialized() {
         try {
             Class<?> clazz = Class.forName("jdk.jfr.FlightRecorder");
             Method method = clazz.getDeclaredMethod("isInitialized",
new Class[0]);
             return (boolean) method.invoke(null, new Object[0]);
         } catch (Exception e) {
             return false;
         }
     }
 
Erik
 
On 2020-06-01 12:30, Fairoz Matte wrote:

Hi Erik,
 
Thanks for your quick response,
Below is the updated webrev to handle if jfr module is not present
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fmatte/8243451/webrev.01/
 
Thanks,
Fairoz
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Gahlin
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 2:31 PM
To: Fairoz Matte HYPERLINK "mailto:fairoz.matte at oracle.com"<fairoz.matte at oracle.com>
Cc: HYPERLINK "mailto:serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net"serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: RFR(s): 8243451: nsk.share.jdi.Debugee.isJFR_active() is
incorrect and corresponsing logic seems to be broken
 
Hi Fairoz,
 
If the test needs to run with builds where the JFR module is not
present(?), you need to do the check using reflection.
 
If not, looks good.
 
Erik
 

On 1 Jun 2020, at 10:27, Fairoz Matte HYPERLINK "mailto:fairoz.matte at oracle.com"<fairoz.matte at oracle.com> wrote:
 
Hi,
 
Please review this small test infra change to identify at runtime
the JFR is

active or not.

JBS - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8243451
Webrev - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fmatte/8243451/webrev.00/
 
Thanks,
Fairoz

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20200608/c107b45a/attachment.htm>