RFR 8208715: Conversion of milliseconds to nanoseconds in UNIXProcess contains bug

[Roger Riggs]

Hi Martin,

Updated with suggestions:
  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-timeout-8208715/index.html

On 8/14/2018 1:22 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Thanks, Roger.  I approve this version, although as always I have 
> comments.
>
>  520     private static native void waitForTimeoutInterruptibly(
>  521         long handle, long timeout);
>
> The units being used should be obvious from the signature - rename 
> timeout to timeoutMillis.
Done
> But even better is to push the support for nanos into the utility 
> method, so change this native method to accept a timeoutNanos.
A bit far from the original issue and it might take a bit more time.
>
> 2465             Thread.sleep(1000);
>
> I hate sleeps, and I would just delete this one - I don't think the 
> test relies on it (and if it did, one second is not long enough!).
Done.  (And in the test case used for the copy/paste of the new test).
>
> 2454                     try {
> 2455                         aboutToWaitFor.countDown();
> 2456                         boolean result = 
> p.waitFor(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
> 2457                         fail("waitFor() wasn't interrupted, its 
> return value was: " + result);
> 2458                     } catch (InterruptedException success) {
> 2459                     } catch (Throwable t) { unexpected(t); }
>
> It's easy to add a self-interrupt variant inside the run method
>
> Thread.currentThread().interrupt(); ...
ok, and will run all the tests again.

Thanks, Roger

>
> (TODO: Basic.java is in need of a re-write - mea culpa ...)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Roger Riggs <Roger.Riggs at oracle.com 
> <mailto:Roger.Riggs at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Martin,
>
>     I updated the webrev with the suggestions.
>
>     On 8/14/2018 10:47 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>     hi Roger,
>>
>>     509 if (deadline <= 0) {
>>     510 deadline = Long.MAX_VALUE;
>>     511 }
>>
>>     This must be wrong.  Nanotime wraparound is normal in this sort
>>     of code.
>     ok, this reader didn't make that assumption
>>
>>     ---
>>
>>     We ought to be able to delegate the fiddling with nanos to
>>     TimeUnit.timedWait.
>>
>>     Does it work to simply call NANOSECONDS.timedWait(remainingNanos) ?
>>     If not, is there a bug in TimeUnit.timedWait?
>     That works except on Windows, that does not use wait().
>
>>
>>     It's good to add a test for this.  I've tried hard in similar
>>     tests to avoid sleep and to add variants where the target thread
>>     is interrupted before and after starting to wait.  Testing
>>     pre-interrupt is easy - the thread can interrupt itself. 
>>     BlockingQueueTest.testTimedPollWithOffer is an example.
>     I added a test, using the same logic as the existing tests for the
>     Long.MAX_VALUE case
>
>     Thanks, Roger
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:00 AM, Roger Riggs
>>     <Roger.Riggs at oracle.com <mailto:Roger.Riggs at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Please review a fix for Process.waitFor(Long.MAX_VALUE,MILLIS).
>>         Catch wrap around in very large wait times and saturate at
>>         Long.MAX_VALUE.
>>
>>         Webrev:
>>         http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-timeout-8208715/
>>         <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Erriggs/webrev-timeout-8208715/>
>>
>>         Issue:
>>         https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208715
>>         <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208715>
>>
>>         Thanks, Roger
>>
>>
>
>