RFR: 8014218: test/java/util/logging/DrainFindDeadlockTest.java failing intermittently

Chris Hegarty chris.hegarty at oracle.com
Mon Jun 17 14:22:45 UTC 2013

On 17/06/2013 14:21, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> Hi,
> Please find below a webrev for fixing
> 8014218: test/java/util/logging/DrainFindDeadlockTest.java failing
> intermittently
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfuchs/JDK-8014218/webrev.00/>
> Without the fix - it's quite easy to make the test fail - especially
> if you copy paste the @run line a few times.
> This test is supposed to detect a deadlock in Logger initialization,
> but it detects too many false positive.
> An analysis of stack traces that the test dumps when it fails shows
> that there is actually no deadlock, since one of the two supposed
> deadlock threads is RUNNABLE.
> However - this - I think - indicates a bug in
> ThreadMXBean.findDeadlockedThreads().
> I have rewritten the test to sanitize the results before
> and after calling ThreadMXBean.findDeadlockedThreads().
> Namely - the test will call ThreadMXBean.findDeadlockedThreads()
> only if the two threads it monitors are simultaneously blocked
> (obtained by examining ThreadMXBean.getThreadInfo(long[])), and
> will verify that all threads found in deadlock by
> ThreadMXBean.findDeadlockedThreads() are indeed blocked.
> Now - I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or not:
> pros: it makes it possible to run this test again - and have a greater
> confidence that if it fails it's because of a genuine deadlock,
> which is desirable.
> cons: it 'hides' a possible bug in ThreadMXBean.findDeadlockedThreads()
> as it appears the test was testing
> ThreadMXBean.findDeadlockedThreads() more than (or as much
> as) it was testing the Logger implementation.
> Does it make sense to push this fix and log a bug against ThreadMXBean?
> Or should I instead plan to add this test to the problem list
> (and re-qualify the bug as an issue in ThreadMXBean)?

I'd be ok to simply file a bug against ThreadMXBean, and put the test on 
the ProblemList.txt for now. It should then be revisited with the bug in 


> guidance appreciated!
> best regards,
> -- daniel

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list