<Swing Dev> [9] Review Request for 8130735: javax.swing.TimerQueue: timer fires late when another timer starts

[Alexander Zvegintsev]

still looks good to me.

Thanks,

Alexander.

On 07/14/2015 12:41 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> I added the double check 
> :http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8130735/webrev.01/
>
> --Semyon
>
> On 7/13/2015 1:24 PM, Alexander Zvegintsev wrote:
>> Hello Semyon,
>>
>> the fix looks good to me.
>>
>> P.S. Just a side note, as I can see we could possibly start two 
>> threads instead of one in startIfNeeded():
>>
>>   96     void startIfNeeded() {
>>   97         if (! running) {
>>   98             runningLock.lock();
>>   99             try {
>>  100                 final ThreadGroup threadGroup = 
>> AppContext.getAppContext().getThreadGroup();
>>  101 AccessController.doPrivileged((PrivilegedAction<Object>) () -> {
>>  102                     String name = "TimerQueue";
>>  103                     Thread timerThread = new 
>> ManagedLocalsThread(threadGroup,
>>  104 this, name);
>>
>> !running check is missing after try. It is not the case with current 
>> code base, but it may be changed in future.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alexander.
>>
>> On 07/09/2015 08:08 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Please review fix for JDK9:
>>>
>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130735
>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8130735/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> The root cause is the setting larger expiration time for the timer 
>>> which is already inserted into the delay queue. So all timers behind 
>>> the timer cannot be executed earlier than its expiration time. This 
>>> happens very rare only for repeated timers and only if user uses the 
>>> Swing timer API inaccurately (call start() without stop()).
>>> The fix eliminates this possibility by introducing a check if the 
>>> timer was already restarted concurrently.
>>> It is difficult to write test because I could not reliably reproduce 
>>> the issue for a reasonable time.
>>>
>>> --Semyon
>>
>