RFR: 8365057: Add support for java.util.concurrent lock information to Thread.dump_to_file [v2]

[Alex Menkov]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 07:05:13 GMT, Alan Bateman <alanb at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Alex Menkov has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   feedback
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/vm/ThreadSnapshot.java line 47:
> 
>> 45:     private int blockerTypeOrdinal;
>> 46:     private Object blockerObject;
>> 47:     // the owner of the blockerObject when the object is park blocker and is AQS
> 
> Typo here, AQS != AbstractOwnableSynchronizer

Replaced with "AbstractOwnableSynchronizer"

> src/jdk.management/share/classes/com/sun/management/doc-files/threadDump.schema.json line 87:
> 
>> 85:                           "required": [
>> 86:                             "object"
>> 87:                           ]
> 
> At L122 the null in the items object should be in quotes, as in "null", and the description ending in ".. null if eliminated" needs a period. There were in the first prototype but didn't make it into the PR patch for some reason. (It came up when using the updated JSON schema, wasn't noticed previously).

Fixed

> test/jdk/com/sun/management/HotSpotDiagnosticMXBean/DumpThreads.java line 445:
> 
>> 443:             assertNotNull(parkBlocker);
>> 444:             assertTrue(parkBlocker.contains("java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock"));
>> 445: 
> 
> Will you add 8365057 to the `@bug` at the top?

Done

> test/lib/jdk/test/lib/threaddump/ThreadDump.java line 300:
> 
>> 298: 
>> 299:         /**
>> 300:          * Returns the owner of the parkBlocker if the parkBlocker is an AQS.
> 
> Can you change "AQS" to AbstractOwnableSynchronizer here? It could be changed to AOS too but few will know what it means.

Done

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27457#discussion_r2380140551
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27457#discussion_r2380139086
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27457#discussion_r2380139344
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27457#discussion_r2380139864