RFR: 8196751: Add jhsdb option to specify debug server RMI connector port
Yasumasa Suenaga
suenaga at oss.nttdata.com
Mon Mar 23 06:13:53 UTC 2020
Hi Daniil,
Looks good!
Yasumasa
On 2020/03/23 7:29, Daniil Titov wrote:
> Hi Yasumasa, Serguei and Alex,
>
> Please review a new version of the webrev that merges SADebugDTest.java with changes done in [2].
>
> Also the CRS [3] and the help message for debug server in SALauncher.java were updated to specify that '--hostname'
> option could be a hostname or an IPv4/IPv6 address.
>
> > Ok, but I think it might be more simply with TestLibrary.
> > For example, can you use TestLibrary::getUnusedRandomPort ? It is used in test/jdk/java/rmi/testlibrary/RMID.java .
>
> TestLibrary:: getUnusedRandomPort() doesn't allow to specify what ports are reserved and it uses some hardcoded port range [FIXED_PORT_MIN, FIXED_PORT_MAX] as reserved ports. Besides, test/jdk/java/rmi/testlibrary/TestLibrary.java class cannot be directly used in test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/* tests (it doesn't compile).
>
> Nevertheless, to simplify the test itself I moved findUnreservedFreePort(int .. reservedPorts) from SADebugTest.java to jdk.test.lib.Utils in /test/lib.
>
> Testing: Mach5 tier1-tier3 tests (that include serviceability/sa/sadebugd tests) succeeded.
>
> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8196751/webrev.04/
> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238268
> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239831
>
> Thank you,
> Daniil
>
> On 3/13/20, 7:23 PM, "Yasumasa Suenaga" <suenaga at oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Daniil,
>
> On 2020/03/14 7:05, Daniil Titov wrote:
> > Hi Yasumasa, Serguei and Alex,
> >
> > Please review a new version of the webrev that includes the changes Yasumasa suggested.
> >
> >> Shutdown hook is already registered in c'tor of HotSpotAgent.
> >> It works same as shutdownServer(), so I think shutdown hook at SALauncher is not needed.
> >
> > The shutdown hook registered in the HotSpotAgent c'tor only works for non-servers, so we still need a
> > the shutdown hook for remote server being added in SALauncher. I changed it to use the lambda expression.
> >
> > 101 public HotSpotAgent() {
> > 102 // for non-server add shutdown hook to clean-up debugger in case
> > 103 // of forced exit. For remote server, shutdown hook is added by
> > 104 // DebugServer.
> > 105 Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new java.lang.Thread(
> > 106 new Runnable() {
> > 107 public void run() {
> > 108 synchronized (HotSpotAgent.this) {
> > 109 if (!isServer) {
> > 110 detach();
> > 111 }
> > 112 }
> > 113 }
> > 114 }));
> > 115 }
>
> I missed it, thanks!
>
>
> >>> Hmm... I think port check (already in use) is not needed because test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/sa/sadebugd/TEST.properties contains
> >>> `exclusiveAccess.dirs=.` to avoid concurrent execution
> > As I understand exclusiveAccess.dirs prevents only the tests located in this directory from being run simultaneously and other tests could still run in parallel with one of these tests. Thus I would prefer to have the retry mechanism in place. I simplified the code using the class variables instead of local arrays.
>
> Ok, but I think it might be more simply with TestLibrary.
> For example, can you use TestLibrary::getUnusedRandomPort ? It is used in test/jdk/java/rmi/testlibrary/RMID.java .
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yasumasa
>
>
> > Testing: Mach5 tier1-tier3 tests (that include serviceability/sa/sadebugd tests) succeeded.
> >
> > [1] Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8196751/webrev.03/
> > [2] CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239831
> > [3] Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8196751
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Daniil
> >
> > On 3/6/20, 6:15 PM, "Yasumasa Suenaga" <suenaga at oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Daniil,
> >
> > On 2020/03/07 3:38, Daniil Titov wrote:
> > > Hi Yasumasa,
> > >
> > > -> checkBasicOptions() is needed? I think you can remove this method and embed it in caller.
> > > I think that having a piece of code that invokes a method named "buildAttachArgs" with a copy of the argument map just for its side-effect ( it throws an exception if parameters are incorrect) and ignores its return might look confusing. Thus, I found it more appropriate to wrap it inside a method with more relevant name .
> >
> > Ok, but I prefer to leave comment it.
> >
> >
> > > > SADebugDTest
> > > > - Why do you declare portInUse and testResult as array? Their length is 1, so I think you don't need to use array.
> > > We cannot use primitives there since these local variables are captured in lambda expression and are required to be final.
> > > The other option is to use some other wrapper for them but I don't see any obvious benefits in it comparing to the array.
> >
> > Hmm... I think port check (already in use) is not needed because test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/sa/sadebugd/TEST.properties contains `exclusiveAccess.dirs=.` to avoid concurrent execution.
> > If you do not think this error check, test code is more simply.
> >
> >
> > > I will include your other suggestion in the new version of the webrev.
> >
> > Sorry, I have one more comment:
> >
> > > - Shutdown hook is very good idea. You can implement more simply if you use lambda expression.
> >
> > Shutdown hook is already registered in c'tor of HotSpotAgent.
> > It works same as shutdownServer(), so I think shutdown hook at SALauncher is not needed.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Yasumasa
> >
> >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Daniil
> > >
> > > On 3/6/20, 12:30 AM, "Yasumasa Suenaga" <suenaga at oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Daniil,
> > >
> > >
> > > - SALauncher.java
> > > - checkBasicOptions() is needed? I think you can remove this method and embed it in caller.
> > > - I think registryPort should be checked with Integer.parseInt() like others (rmiPort and pid) rather than regex.
> > > - Shutdown hook is very good idea. You can implement more simply if you use lambda expression.
> > >
> > > - SADebugDTest.java
> > > - Please add bug ID to @bug.
> > > - Why do you declare portInUse and testResult as array? Their length is 1, so I think you don't need to use array.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Yasumasa
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2020/03/06 10:15, Daniil Titov wrote:
> > > > Hi Yasumasa, Serguei and Alex,
> > > >
> > > > Please review a new version of the fix [1] that addresses your comments. The new version in addition to RMI connector
> > > > port option introduces two more options to specify RMI registry port and RMI connector host name. Currently, these
> > > > last two settings could be specified using the system properties but the system properties have the following disadvantages
> > > > comparing to the command line options:
> > > > - It’s hard to know about them: they are not listed in tool’s help.
> > > > - They have long names that hard to remember
> > > > - It is easy to mistype them in the command line and you will not get any warning about it.
> > > >
> > > > The CSR [2] was also updated and needs to be reviewed.
> > > >
> > > > Testing: Manual testing with attaching the debug server to the running Java process or to the core file inside a docker
> > > > container and connecting to it with the GUI debugger. Mach5 tier1-tier3 tests (that include serviceability/sa/sadebugd tests) succeeded.
> > > >
> > > > [1] Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8196751/webrev.02/
> > > > [2] CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239831
> > > > [3] Jira issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8196751
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Daniil
> > > >
> > > > On 2/24/20, 5:45 AM, "Yasumasa Suenaga" <suenaga at oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Daniil,
> > > >
> > > > - SALauncher::buildAttachArgs is not only to build arguments but also to check consistency of arguments.
> > > > Thus you should use buildAttachArgs() in runDEBUGD(). If you do so, runDEBUGD() would be more simply.
> > > >
> > > > - SADebugDTest::testWithPidAndRmiPort would retry until `--rmiport` can be used.
> > > > But you can use same port number as RMI registry (1099).
> > > > It is same as relation between jmxremote.port and jmxremote.rmi.port.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Yasumasa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2020/02/24 13:21, Daniil Titov wrote:
> > > > > Please review change that adds a new command line option to jhsdb tool for the debugd mode to specify a RMI connector port.
> > > > > Currently a random port is used that prevents the debug server from being used behind a firewall or in a container.
> > > > >
> > > > > New CSR [3] was created for this change and it needs to be reviewed as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Man pages for jhsdb will be updated in a separate issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > The current implementation (sun.jvm.hotspot.SALauncher) parses the command line options passed to jhsdb tool,
> > > > > converts them to the ones for the debug server and then delegates the call to sun.jvm.hotspot.DebugServer.main().
> > > > >
> > > > > // delegate to the actual SA debug server.
> > > > > 367 DebugServer.main(newArgArray.toArray(new String[0]));
> > > > >
> > > > > However, sun.jvm.hotspot.DebugServer doesn't support named options and that prevents from efficiently adding new options to the tool.
> > > > > I found it more suitable to start Hotspot agent directly in SALauncher rather than adding a new option in both sun.jvm.hotspot.SALauncher
> > > > > and sun.jvm.hotspot.DebugServer and delegating the call. With this change I think sun.jvm.hotspot.DebugServer could be marked as a deprecated
> > > > > but I would prefer to address it in a separate issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Testing: Manual testing with attaching the debug server to the running Java process or to the core file inside a docker
> > > > > container and connecting to it with the GUI debugger.
> > > > > Mach5 tier1-tier3 tests (that include serviceability/sa/sadebugd tests) succeeded.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8196751/webrev.01
> > > > > [2] Jira issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8196751
> > > > > [3] CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239831
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > Daniil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
More information about the serviceability-dev
mailing list