code review round 0 for ObjectMonitor-JVM/TI hang fix (8028073)
Karen Kinnear
karen.kinnear at oracle.com
Mon Feb 10 12:20:57 PST 2014
Dan,
Thank you so much. My bad - I was looking at a jdk8 repo, not a jdk9 one.
So I agree that the JDK9 fix as is works. Code change reviewed.
For JDK8:
I don't believe we were planning to backport this to 8 given risks of changes in this area.
I did reach the same conclusion you did, that the WaitSetLock acquirers who already own
the lock don't have this issue, but those that don't already own the lock do have
the problem, and the timed wait could trigger this.
And that a JDK8 fix would take the change out of the jvmti conditional, or need the 8028280
fix, which I also believe we do not plan to backport.
thank you for the detailed walk-through,
Karen
On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> On 2/9/14 8:37 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> trimming content ...
>>
>> On 8/02/2014 9:45 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>> On 2/7/14 2:56 PM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
>>>> 3. Did I read the code correctly that the Thread::SpinAcquire can make
>>>> a timed park
>>>> call on the same thread's _ParkEvent? And that this is used to get on
>>>> and off the wait queue,
>>>> i.e. to acquire the WaitSetLock?
>>>> Is there the same risk that a notify might be eaten here also?
>>>
>>> As far as I can see, Thread::SpinAcquire() does not use a ParkEvent
>>
>> It sure does:
>>
>> void Thread::SpinAcquire (volatile int * adr, const char * LockName) {
>> if (Atomic::cmpxchg (1, adr, 0) == 0) {
>> return ; // normal fast-path return
>> }
>>
>> // Slow-path : We've encountered contention -- Spin/Yield/Block strategy.
>> TEVENT (SpinAcquire - ctx) ;
>> int ctr = 0 ;
>> int Yields = 0 ;
>> for (;;) {
>> while (*adr != 0) {
>> ++ctr ;
>> if ((ctr & 0xFFF) == 0 || !os::is_MP()) {
>> if (Yields > 5) {
>> // Consider using a simple NakedSleep() instead.
>> // Then SpinAcquire could be called by non-JVM threads
>> Thread::current()->_ParkEvent->park(1) ;
>
> Ummmm... that's not the code I'm seeing...
>
> src/share/vm/runtime/thread.cpp:
>
> 4417 void Thread::SpinAcquire (volatile int * adr, const char * LockName) {
> 4418 if (Atomic::cmpxchg (1, adr, 0) == 0) {
> 4419 return ; // normal fast-path return
> 4420 }
> 4421
> 4422 // Slow-path : We've encountered contention -- Spin/Yield/Block strategy.
> 4423 TEVENT (SpinAcquire - ctx) ;
> 4424 int ctr = 0 ;
> 4425 int Yields = 0 ;
> 4426 for (;;) {
> 4427 while (*adr != 0) {
> 4428 ++ctr ;
> 4429 if ((ctr & 0xFFF) == 0 || !os::is_MP()) {
> 4430 if (Yields > 5) {
> 4431 os::naked_short_sleep(1);
> 4432 } else {
> 4433 os::NakedYield() ;
> 4434 ++Yields ;
> 4435 }
> 4436 } else {
> 4437 SpinPause() ;
> 4438 }
> 4439 }
> 4440 if (Atomic::cmpxchg (1, adr, 0) == 0) return ;
> 4441 }
> 4442 }
>
> Mr Simms recently changed the above code via:
>
> changeset: 5832:5944dba4badc
> user: dsimms
> date: Fri Jan 24 09:28:47 2014 +0100
> summary: 8028280: ParkEvent leak when running modified runThese which only loads classes
>
> os::naked_short_sleep() is new:
>
> - BSD/MacOS X, Linux - uses nanosleep()
> - Solaris - uses usleep()
> - Windows - uses Sleep()
>
> The fix for 8028280 was pushed to JDK9/hs-rt on 2014.01.24 and to JDK9/hs
> on 2014.01.29. I don't see any signs that Mr Simm's fix will be backported
> to JDK8u/HSX-25u (yet) so this part of the review thread might impact the
> backport of my fix to earlier releases.
>
>
>> So considering Karen's question ... I can't tell for certain. :(
>>
>> I do not think the SpinAcquire on grabbing the wait-set lock to add to the wait-set can be an issue because we will only park in response to the actual wait, and hence only get unparked due to a notify/notifyAll, but at this point we still own the monitor so no notify/notifyAll is possible.
>>
>> However, for the removal from the wait-set a more complex analysis is needed. To do the SpinAcquire we must still be flagged as TS_WAIT - which means we have not been notified, but must be returning due to a timeout (or spurious wakeup?). In such circumstances could we be _succ? I don't think so but I'll leave it to Dan to confirm that part :)
>
> So for HSX-25 and probably older...
>
> There are four Thread::SpinAcquire() calls in the objectMonitor code:
>
> Thread::SpinAcquire (&_WaitSetLock, "WaitSet - add") ;
> Thread::SpinAcquire (&_WaitSetLock, "WaitSet - unlink") ;
> Thread::SpinAcquire (&_WaitSetLock, "WaitSet - notify") ;
> Thread::SpinAcquire (&_WaitSetLock, "WaitSet - notifyall") ;
>
> We can easily rule out the "notify" and "notifyAll" uses since the
> current thread owns the Java-level monitor and there are no events
> to post in this part of the notify() or notifyAll() protocols.
>
> For the "WaitSet - add" use, the current thread owns the Java-level
> monitor and the thread has not been added as a waiter yet so another
> thread cannot do the notify-exit-make-successor part of the protocol
> yet.
>
> For the "WaitSet - unlink" use:
>
> src/share/vm/runtime/objectMonitor.cpp:
>
> 1569 if (node.TState == ObjectWaiter::TS_WAIT) {
> 1570 Thread::SpinAcquire (&_WaitSetLock, "WaitSet - unlink") ;
> 1571 if (node.TState == ObjectWaiter::TS_WAIT) {
> 1572 DequeueSpecificWaiter (&node) ; // unlink from WaitSet
> 1573 assert(node._notified == 0, "invariant");
> 1574 node.TState = ObjectWaiter::TS_RUN ;
> 1575 }
> 1576 Thread::SpinRelease (&_WaitSetLock) ;
> 1577 }
>
> It is the call on line 1570 above that gets us into this code:
>
> src/share/vm/runtime/thread.cpp:
>
> 4435 void Thread::SpinAcquire (volatile int * adr, const char * LockName) {
> 4436 if (Atomic::cmpxchg (1, adr, 0) == 0) {
> 4437 return ; // normal fast-path return
> 4438 }
> 4439
> 4440 // Slow-path : We've encountered contention -- Spin/Yield/Block strategy.
> 4441 TEVENT (SpinAcquire - ctx) ;
> 4442 int ctr = 0 ;
> 4443 int Yields = 0 ;
> 4444 for (;;) {
> 4445 while (*adr != 0) {
> 4446 ++ctr ;
> 4447 if ((ctr & 0xFFF) == 0 || !os::is_MP()) {
> 4448 if (Yields > 5) {
> 4449 // Consider using a simple NakedSleep() instead.
> 4450 // Then SpinAcquire could be called by non-JVM threads
> 4451 Thread::current()->_ParkEvent->park(1) ;
> 4452 } else {
> 4453 os::NakedYield() ;
> 4454 ++Yields ;
> 4455 }
> 4456 } else {
> 4457 SpinPause() ;
> 4458 }
> 4459 }
> 4460 if (Atomic::cmpxchg (1, adr, 0) == 0) return ;
> 4461 }
> 4462 }
>
> And the above code can consume the unpark() on line 4451.
>
> So how the heck do we get to line 1570???
>
> Well, the target thread would have to be both notified and unparked
> to be executing this code path. When the notify() code runs, the
> target of the notify() is changed from ObjectWaiter::TS_WAIT to
> ObjectWaiter::TS_ENTER unless Knob_MoveNotifyee == 4. The default
> for Knob_MoveNotifyee == 2 so we're in non default mode here...
>
> Here are the Knob_MoveNotifyee policy values:
>
> 1717 if (Policy == 0) { // prepend to EntryList
> 1728 if (Policy == 1) { // append to EntryList
> 1744 if (Policy == 2) { // prepend to cxq
> 1760 if (Policy == 3) { // append to cxq
>
> For Knob_MoveNotifyee == 4 (or higher), we use the old mechanism
> where we just unpark the target thread and let it run. Part of
> that code changes from ObjectWaiter::TS_WAIT to ObjectWaiter::TS_RUN.
>
> The code works the same for notifyAll() for the thread picked
> to be notified. For the Knob_MoveNotifyee == 4 (or higher) case,
> we just unpark all the waiters and we a free-for-all.
>
> So it looks like the code block from lines 1569-1577 is never
> used... or is it? Well... you have to remember two things:
>
> 1) spurious unpark()
> 2) timed wait()
>
> The caller might have called wait(0), but that doesn't mean that
> the underlying park() mechanism won't have a spurious unpark().
> Or better, the caller might have called wait(1) and be running
> again after a millisecond.
>
> So in the HSX25 and older system (i.e., without Mr Simms fix for
> 8028280), it is possible for this call:
>
> 1570 Thread::SpinAcquire (&_WaitSetLock, "WaitSet - unlink") ;
>
> to consume the unpark(). The gauntlet that has to be traversed
> to get to this call:
>
> 4451 Thread::current()->_ParkEvent->park(1) ;
>
> is impressive:
>
> - fast-path acquisition of the _WaitSetLock has to fail:
>
> 4436 if (Atomic::cmpxchg (1, adr, 0) == 0) {
> 4437 return ; // normal fast-path return
> 4438 }
>
> - if the machine is a uniprocessor, then 6 os::NakedYield()
> call-loop-recheck attempts have to fail:
>
> 4447 if ((ctr & 0xFFF) == 0 || !os::is_MP()) {
> 4448 if (Yields > 5) {
> 4449 // Consider using a simple NakedSleep() instead.
> 4450 // Then SpinAcquire could be called by non-JVM threads
> 4451 Thread::current()->_ParkEvent->park(1) ;
> 4452 } else {
> 4453 os::NakedYield() ;
> 4454 ++Yields ;
> 4455 }
>
> - if the machine is a multi-processor, then 6 rounds of { 4095 SpinPause()
> attempts, 1 os::NakedYield() attempt} have to fail:
>
> 4446 ++ctr ;
> 4447 if ((ctr & 0xFFF) == 0 || !os::is_MP()) {
> 4448 if (Yields > 5) {
> 4449 // Consider using a simple NakedSleep() instead.
> 4450 // Then SpinAcquire could be called by non-JVM threads
> 4451 Thread::current()->_ParkEvent->park(1) ;
> 4452 } else {
> 4453 os::NakedYield() ;
> 4454 ++Yields ;
> 4455 }
> 4456 } else {
> 4457 SpinPause() ;
> 4458 }
>
> But it is possible. It is one of those once-in-a-blue moon type
> windows where everything has to line up just so.
>
> So how do we address this issue in HSX-25 and possibly older?
>
> If Mr Simms fix for 8028280 is also backported, then there is no
> issue. If it is not backported, then applying the fix for this
> bug like so:
>
> src/share/vm/runtime/objectMonitor.cpp:
>
> 1596 if (JvmtiExport::should_post_monitor_waited()) {
> 1597 JvmtiExport::post_monitor_waited(jt, this, ret == OS_TIMEOUT);
> 1598 }
>
> 1604 if (node._notified != 0 && _succ == Self) {
> 1605 // In this part of the monitor wait-notify-reenter protocol it
> 1606 // is possible (and normal) for another thread to do a fastpath
> 1607 // monitor enter-exit while this thread is still trying to get
> 1608 // to the reenter portion of the protocol.
> 1609 //
> 1610 // The ObjectMonitor was notified and the current thread is
> 1611 // the successor which also means that an unpark() has already
> 1612 // been done. The JVMTI_EVENT_MONITOR_WAITED event handler can
> 1613 // consume the unpark() that was done when the successor was
> 1614 // set because the same ParkEvent is shared between Java
> 1615 // monitors and JVM/TI RawMonitors (for now).
> 1616 //
> 1617 // We redo the unpark() to ensure forward progress, i.e., we
> 1618 // don't want all pending threads hanging (parked) with none
> 1619 // entering the unlocked monitor.
> 1620 node._event->unpark();
> 1621 }
>
> Of course the line numbers for the "fix" would be different and the comment
> would need to be updated to reflect that the:
>
> 1570 Thread::SpinAcquire (&_WaitSetLock, "WaitSet - unlink") ;
>
> call above could also consume an unpark(), but it should work.
>
> If you've read this far, then I'm impressed. If you've read this far
> and only fallen asleep a couple of times, then I'm still impressed.
>
> Summary: I don't think we have an issue in JDK9, but we'll have to do
> the fix in JDK8/HSX25 and older a little differently.
>
> Dan
>
>
>>
>> David
>> -----
>>
>>> at all. However, Thread::muxAcquire() does use a ParkEvent, but it
>>> is a different ParkEvent. From src/share/vm/runtime/thread.hpp:
>>>
>>> ParkEvent * _ParkEvent ; // for synchronized()
>>> ParkEvent * _SleepEvent ; // for Thread.sleep
>>> ParkEvent * _MutexEvent ; // for native internal
>>> Mutex/Monitor
>>> ParkEvent * _MuxEvent ; // for low-level
>>> muxAcquire-muxRelease
>>>
>>> So ObjectMonitor uses the _ParkEvent field and Thread::muxAcquire()
>>> uses the _MuxEvent. There are some comments in thread.cpp about
>>> how _MuxEvent could be eliminated and _ParkEvent shared, but I don't
>>> think we ever want to go there.
>>>
>>> I also filed this RFE:
>>>
>>> 8033399 add a separate ParkEvent for JVM/TI RawMonitor use
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033399
>>>
>>> just in case the Serviceability team wants to migrate JVM/TI RawMonitors
>>> to a separate ParkEvent.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if you concur that I've resolved issue #3.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If so, I wonder if we want this added unpark to not just be called if
>>>> JVMTI_EVENT_MONITOR_WAITED
>>>> is enabled?
>>>
>>> I don't think we need it, but I've noted its removal as a risk.
>>>
>>> Again, thanks for the review!
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Karen
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 1, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a fix ready for the following bug:
>>>>>
>>>>> 8028073 race condition in ObjectMonitor implementation causing
>>>>> deadlocks
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8028073
>>>>>
>>>>> On the surface, this is a very simple fix that relocates a few lines of
>>>>> code, relocates and rewrites the comments associated with that code and
>>>>> adds several new comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, in reality, the issue is much more complicated, but I'm
>>>>> hoping to make it easy for anyone not acquainted with this issue to
>>>>> understand what's going on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the JDK9 webrev URLs:
>>>>>
>>>>> OpenJDK:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8028073-webrev/0-jdk9-hs-runtime/
>>>>>
>>>>> Oracle internal:
>>>>> http://javaweb.us.oracle.com/~ddaugher/8028073-webrev/0-jdk9-hs-runtime/
>>>>>
>>>>> The simple summary:
>>>>>
>>>>> - since Java Monitors and JVM/TI RawMonitors share a ParkEvent,
>>>>> it is possible for a JVM/TI monitor event handler to accidentally
>>>>> consume a ParkEvent.unpark() call meant for Java Monitor layer
>>>>> - the original code fix was made on 2005.07.04 using this bug ID:
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-5030359
>>>>> - it's the right fix, but it's in the wrong place
>>>>> - the fix needs to be after the JVMTI_EVENT_MONITOR_WAITED
>>>>> event handler is called because it is that event handler
>>>>> that can cause the hang
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Testing
>>>>> -------
>>>>>
>>>>> - a new StessMonitorWait test has been created that reliably
>>>>> reproduces the hang in JDK[6789]; see the bug's gory details
>>>>> for the specific versions where the hang has been reproduced
>>>>> - the test reliably reproduces the hang in 5 seconds on my
>>>>> T7600 running Solaris 10u11 X86; 1 minute runs reproduce
>>>>> the hang reliably on other machines
>>>>> - 12 hour stress run of the new test on Linux-X64, MacOS X-X64,
>>>>> Solaris-SPARCV9, Solaris-X64, and Win7-X86 with the JPRT
>>>>> bits did not reproduce the hang
>>>>> - JPRT test job
>>>>> - VM/SQE Adhoc test job on Server VM, fastdebug bits on Linux-X86,
>>>>> Linux-X64, MacOS X-X64, Solaris-SPARCV9, Solaris-X64, Windows-X86,
>>>>> and Windows-X64:
>>>>> - vm.quick
>>>>> - Kitchensink (bigapps)
>>>>> - Weblogic+medrec (bigapps)
>>>>> - runThese (bigapps)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Gory Details Start Here
>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the old location of block of code that's being moved:
>>>>>
>>>>> src/share/vm/runtime/objectMonitor.cpp:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1440 void ObjectMonitor::wait(jlong millis, bool interruptible, TRAPS) {
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> 1499 exit (true, Self) ; // exit the monitor
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> 1513 if (node._notified != 0 && _succ == Self) {
>>>>> 1514 node._event->unpark();
>>>>> 1515 }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the new location of block of code that's being moved:
>>>>>
>>>>> src/share/vm/runtime/objectMonitor.cpp:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1452 void ObjectMonitor::wait(jlong millis, bool interruptible, TRAPS) {
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> 1601 if (JvmtiExport::should_post_monitor_waited()) {
>>>>> 1602 JvmtiExport::post_monitor_waited(jt, this, ret ==
>>>>> OS_TIMEOUT);
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> 1604 if (node._notified != 0 && _succ == Self) {
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> 1620 node._event->unpark();
>>>>> 1621 }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Risks
>>>>> ---------
>>>>>
>>>>> - The code now executes only when the JVMTI_EVENT_MONITOR_WAITED event
>>>>> is enabled:
>>>>> - previously it was always executed
>>>>> - while the old code was not effective for the hang that is being
>>>>> fixed with this bug, it is possible that the old code prevented
>>>>> a different bug in the successor protocol from manifesting
>>>>> - thorough analysis of the successor protocol did not reveal a
>>>>> case where the old code was needed in the old location
>>>>> - Thorough analysis indicates that the other JVM/TI monitor events
>>>>> do not need a fix like the one for JVMTI_EVENT_MONITOR_WAITED:
>>>>> - the successor protocol is complicated and the analysis could
>>>>> be wrong when certain options are used
>>>>> - comments were added to each location where a JVM/TI monitor
>>>>> event handler is called documenting why a fix like this one
>>>>> is not needed there
>>>>> - if the analysis is wrong, the new comments show where a new
>>>>> code change would be needed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Scenario
>>>>> ------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I've created a scenario that reproduces this hang:
>>>>>
>>>>> T1 - enters monitor and calls monitor.wait()
>>>>> T2 - enters the monitor, calls monitor.notify() and exits the monitor
>>>>> T3 - enters and exits the monitor
>>>>> T4 - enters the monitor, delays for 5 seconds, exits the monitor
>>>>>
>>>>> A JVM/TI agent that enables JVMTI_EVENT_MONITOR_WAITED and has a
>>>>> handler that: enters a raw monitor, waits for 1ms, exits a raw monitor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the six events necessary to make this hang happen:
>>>>>
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-1a: After being unparked(), T1 has cleared the _succ
>>>>> field, but
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-1b: T3 is exiting the monitor and makes T1 the successor
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-2a: The unpark() done by T3 when it made T1 the successor
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-2b: is consumed by the JVM/TI event handler.
>>>>>
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-3a: T3 made T1 the successor
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-3b: but before T1 could reenter the monitor T4 grabbed it.
>>>>>
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-4a: T1's TrySpin() call sees T4 as NotRunnable so
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-4b: T1 bails from TrySpin without touching _succ.
>>>>>
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-5a: T4 sees that T1 is still the successor so
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-5b: T4 takes the quick exit path (no ExitEpilog)
>>>>>
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-6a: T1 is about to park and it is the successor, but
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-6b: T3's unpark has been eaten by the JVM/TI event handler
>>>>> // KEY-EVENT-6c: and T4 took the quick exit path. T1 is about to be
>>>>> stuck.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This bug is intertwined with:
>>>>>
>>>>> - The ObjectMonitor successor protocol
>>>>> - the sharing of a ParkEvent between Java Monitors and JVM/TI
>>>>> RawMonitors
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a very long successor.notes attachment to JDK-8028073 that
>>>>> attempts to describe the ObjectMonitor successor protocol. It's good
>>>>> for putting pretty much anyone to sleep.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since this hang reproduces back to JDK6, this bug is taking the easily
>>>>> backported solution of moving the original fix to the right location.
>>>>> The following new bug has been filed for possible future work in this
>>>>> area by the Serviceability Team:
>>>>>
>>>>> 8033399 add a separate ParkEvent for JVM/TI RawMonitor use
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033399
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Symptoms
>>>>> ------------
>>>>>
>>>>> With intermittent hangs like this, it is useful to know what to look
>>>>> for in order to determine if you are running into this issue:
>>>>>
>>>>> - if you aren't using a debugger or a profiler or some other
>>>>> JVM/TI agent, then this hang is not the same as yours
>>>>> - if your JVM/TI agent isn't using a JVMTI_EVENT_MONITOR_WAITED
>>>>> event handler, then this hang is not the same as yours
>>>>> - if your JVMTI_EVENT_MONITOR_WAITED event handler is not using
>>>>> JVM/TI RawMonitors, then this hang is not the same as yours
>>>>> - if your JVMTI_EVENT_MONITOR_WAITED event handler is calling
>>>>> back into Java code, then you might just be insane and this
>>>>> hang might be similar to yours. However, using a Java callback
>>>>> in an event handler is an even bigger problem/risk so fix that
>>>>> first.
>>>>> - if you one or more threads blocked like this and making no
>>>>> progress, then this hang might be the same as yours:
>>>>>
>>>>> "T1" #22 prio=5 os_prio=64 tid=0x00000000009ca800 nid=0x2f waiting
>>>>> for monitor e
>>>>> ntry [0xfffffd7fc0231000]
>>>>> java.lang.Thread.State: BLOCKED (on object monitor)
>>>>> JavaThread state: _thread_blocked
>>>>> Thread: 0x00000000009ca800 [0x2f] State: _at_safepoint
>>>>> _has_called_back 0 _at_p
>>>>> oll_safepoint 0
>>>>> JavaThread state: _thread_blocked
>>>>> at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method)
>>>>> - waiting on <0xfffffd7e6a2b6ff0> (a java.lang.String)
>>>>> at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:502)
>>>>> at SMW_WorkerThread.run(StressMonitorWait.java:103)
>>>>> - locked <0xfffffd7e6a2b6ff0> (a java.lang.String)
>>>>>
>>>>> "T2" #23 prio=5 os_prio=64 tid=0x00000000009cc000 nid=0x30 waiting
>>>>> for monitor e
>>>>> ntry [0xfffffd7fc0130000]
>>>>> java.lang.Thread.State: BLOCKED (on object monitor)
>>>>> JavaThread state: _thread_blocked
>>>>> Thread: 0x00000000009cc000 [0x30] State: _at_safepoint
>>>>> _has_called_back 0 _at_p
>>>>> oll_safepoint 0
>>>>> JavaThread state: _thread_blocked
>>>>> at SMW_WorkerThread.run(StressMonitorWait.java:120)
>>>>> - waiting to lock <0xfffffd7e6a2b6ff0> (a java.lang.String)
>>>>>
>>>>> "T3" #24 prio=5 os_prio=64 tid=0x00000000009ce000 nid=0x31 waiting
>>>>> for monitor e
>>>>> ntry [0xfffffd7fc002f000]
>>>>> java.lang.Thread.State: BLOCKED (on object monitor)
>>>>> JavaThread state: _thread_blocked
>>>>> Thread: 0x00000000009ce000 [0x31] State: _at_safepoint
>>>>> _has_called_back 0 _at_p
>>>>> oll_safepoint 0
>>>>> JavaThread state: _thread_blocked
>>>>> at SMW_WorkerThread.run(StressMonitorWait.java:139)
>>>>> - waiting to lock <0xfffffd7e6a2b6ff0> (a java.lang.String)
>>>>>
>>>>> Key symptoms in thread T1:
>>>>>
>>>>> - had the object locked:
>>>>>
>>>>> locked <0xfffffd7e6a2b6ff0> (a java.lang.String)
>>>>>
>>>>> - did an Object.wait():
>>>>>
>>>>> waiting on <0xfffffd7e6a2b6ff0> (a java.lang.String)
>>>>>
>>>>> - is blocked on reentry:
>>>>>
>>>>> waiting for monitor entry [0xfffffd7fc0231000]
>>>>>
>>>>> Key symtoms in thread T2:
>>>>>
>>>>> - is blocked waiting to lock the object:
>>>>>
>>>>> waiting for monitor entry [0xfffffd7fc0130000]
>>>>> waiting to lock <0xfffffd7e6a2b6ff0> (a java.lang.String)
>>>>>
>>>>> Key symtoms in thread T3:
>>>>>
>>>>> - is blocked waiting to lock the object:
>>>>>
>>>>> waiting for monitor entry [0xfffffd7fc002f000]
>>>>> waiting to lock <0xfffffd7e6a2b6ff0> (a java.lang.String)
>>>>>
>>>
>
More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev
mailing list