RFR - JDK-8133416: [TESTBUG] Remove @ignore for closed/runtime/4345157/Prog.java
David Holmes
david.holmes at oracle.com
Thu Nov 12 06:53:27 UTC 2015
Hi Stas,
On 12/11/2015 2:22 AM, Stas Smirnov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> please see the updated webrev,
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stsmirno/8133416/webrev.01
test/runtime/ThreadSignalMask/exeThreadSignalMask.c
I would still prefer to see the compilation selection being done via the
makefile rather than invoking the compiler to do nothing. You can test
the current OS and ARCH easily enough. This test:
#if defined(__sun) && defined(__SVR4)
is not an appropriate test for solaris anyway.
The sigwait do/while loop has not been changed and is still wrong as per
my earlier comments. If an unexpected signal arrives the err will be
EINTR so this:
234 if (err != 0 && err != EINTR) {
235 // print error message if unexpected signal occurred
236 fprintf(stderr, "main: sigwait() error: %s\n", strerror(err));
should simply be:
234 if (err == EINTR) {
235 // print error message if unexpected signal occurred
236 fprintf(stderr, "main: sigwait() error: %s\n", strerror(err));
though you may also want a case for some other error occurring.
---
test/runtime/ThreadSignalMask/Prog.java
My comments regarding the very odd code in this class were not
addressed. What is it supposed to be doing?
---
test/runtime/ThreadSignalMask/ThreadSignalMask.java
I still think the basic approach of this test is very poor. launching a
VM and hoping it will get to the right place before a signal is sent is
error prone. And I'm still unclear what exactly constitutes success here
- does destroying the executable expect to get a zero return code?
Thanks,
David
> On 10/11/15 15:36, Stas Smirnov wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> please see inline
>>
>> On 10/11/15 07:53, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Stas,
>>>
>>> Piggy-backing on Dan's comments and your responses ...
>>>
>>> And apologies if all the problems stem from the original code that
>>> has been rewritten, I can only comment on what I'm reviewing here.
>>>
>>> On 9/11/2015 11:52 PM, Stas Smirnov wrote:
>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for your feedback, please see my comments below
>>>>
>>>> On 06/11/15 22:07, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>> On 11/4/15 3:33 AM, Stas Smirnov wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> please review this fix for JDK-8133416.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The test has been fixed and rewritten in Java to start using native
>>>>>> support mechanism in Jtreg.
>>>>>> Also, its native part has been modified to avoid compilation on
>>>>>> inappropriate platforms and also includes improvements.
>>>
>>> I would think the simplest way to avoid compilation would be to
>>> conditionally add this test's directory to the set of source
>>> directories in JtregNative.gmk based on the OS value. I also see no
>>> reason to restrict this test to sparcv9 (though it does make the
>>> native code a little harder to write to find the libjvm.so location).
>>> Going further there's no reason this couldn't run on Linux, or any
>>> other POSIX compatible systems.
>>>
>>> Ideally you should not need to define:
>>>
>>> #define _POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS
>>>
>>> in the source - as that is used by programs using Solaris threads,
>>> instead of POSIX threads, but which want POSIX semantics for certain
>>> common APIs. But I can see that the test compilation is using the
>>> same settings as the main hotspot build, which means we get Solaris
>>> threads and -lthread. So please add a comment explaining this.
>> I will add comment with a text like "to enable POSIX semantics for
>> certain common APIs"
>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately the JBS issue is not visible to the community as well
>>>>>> as the original version of the test sources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133416
>>>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stsmirno/8133416/webrev.00
>>>>>
>>>>> make/test/JtregNative.gmk
>>>>> No comments.
>>>
>>> See prior comment about conditionally building this test.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> test/runtime/ThreadSignalMask/Prog.java
>>>>> No comments.
>>>
>>> What are you trying to do here:
>>>
>>> 28 try {
>>> 29 Prog.class.wait();
>>> 30 } catch (Exception e) {
>>>
>>> this will throw IllegalMonitorStateException as you can't call wait()
>>> on an Object unless you own the monitor of the object via use of
>>> "synchronized".
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> test/runtime/ThreadSignalMask/ThreadSignalMask.java
>>>>> No comments.
>>>
>>> "No comments" is my problem with this class :) I can't work out what
>>> it is trying to do as there are no comments. I'm not even sure what
>>> this class exec's via processBuilder - I thought it would be the
>>> native C program, which in turn invokes Prog, but I can't see where
>>> that happens. ??
>> Comments, sure.
>> exeThreadSignalMask.c is being compiled into an executable
>> ThreadSignalMask which is being executed via ProcessBuilder and the
>> testjdk path is an input argument for it.
>> Then native code invokes Prog using
>> cls = (*env)->FindClass(env, "Prog");
>> and later
>> (*env)->CallStaticVoidMethod(env, cls, mid, args);
>>>
>>> Here:
>>>
>>> 89 for (long interval : intervalsArray) {
>>> 90 Process p = pb.start();
>>> 91
>>> 92 // sleep for a specified period of time to let
>>> native run
>>> 93 sleep(interval);
>>> 94 p.destroy();
>>> 95 // sleep for a specified period of time to let
>>> native exit
>>> 96 sleep(interval);
>>>
>>> This is poor logic for hoping that we're waiting long enough for the
>>> exec'd process to run - simply try with a longer timeout. If I
>>> understood what the test was doing better I may have a better
>>> suggestion - though often a sentinel file is used to coordinate
>>> processes. The second sleep is unnecessary as you can use
>>> Process.waitFor and then get the return value.
>>>
>> Second sleep, agree
>>> The indent style is also wrong for Java code:
>>>
>>> 55 Path classFilePath = Paths.get(
>>> 56 testClasses,
>>> 57 Prog.class.getSimpleName() + ".class");
>>>
>>> should be
>>>
>>> Path classFilePath = Paths.get(testClasses,
>>> Prog.class.getSimpleName() + ".class");
>>>
>>> and
>>> 73 Files.copy(
>>> 74 executableFilePath,
>>> 75 executableFileLocalPath,
>>> 76 StandardCopyOption.REPLACE_EXISTING);
>>>
>>> should be:
>>>
>>> Files.copy(executableFilePath,
>>> executableFileLocalPath,
>>> StandardCopyOption.REPLACE_EXISTING);
>>>
>>> etc.
>> thanks, will fix it
>>>
>>>>> test/runtime/ThreadSignalMask/exeThreadSignalMask.c
>>>>> General: I think the indent standard for 'C' was also two spaces,
>>>>> but I could be wrong...
>>>> I do not know about any strict requirement about spaces, just for me 4
>>>> spaces are more readable, is it that critical?
>>>
>>> Hotspot C-style is 2-space indent. Java code is (universally?) 4
>>> spaces. Might as well get used to it :)
>> 2-spaces, got it
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> L39 char path[PATH_MAX];
>>>>> Recommend '+1' for NULL termination space.
>>>>>
>>>>> L45: extern void exit(int);
>>>>> Hard to believe this isn't in a header file...
>>>> warnings tell me that it is not
>>>
>>> It is in stdlib.h so that should be included.
>> I will do so
>>>
>>> Looking at a few others things:
>>>
>>> - more comments explaining what the test is trying to achieve please!
>>> - there's no error checking for any of the pthread_* functions
>>> - names like doStuff, somethr and atchJVM are not very information
>>> nor do they need to be abbreviated like that
>>> - atchJVM is not used
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't quite follow this loop and subsequent code:
>>>
>>> 206 do {
>>> 207 int err;
>>> 208
>>> 209 sig = 0;
>>> 210 err = sigwait(&set, &sig);
>>> 211 if (err != 0 && err != EINTR) {
>>> 212 fprintf(stderr, "main: sigwait() error: %s\n",
>>> strerror(err));
>>> 213 } else {
>>> 214 fprintf(stderr, "main: sigwait() got:
>>> %d\nSucceed!\n", sig);
>>> 215 exit(0);
>>> 216 }
>>> 217 } while (sig != SIGTERM && sig != SIGINT);
>>> 218
>>> 219 pthread_join(thr1, NULL);
>>> 220
>>> 221 closeHandle();
>>> 222 fputs("Main thread exiting.\n", stderr);
>>> 223 return 0;
>>>
>>> If we get EINTR because an unblocked signal was received and
>>> interrupted the sigwait then we will go to the else at #213 and exit
>>> at #214. If we get any of the expected signals we follow the exit
>>> path. So the loop condition will only be checked if sigwait returned
>>> an error (other than EINTR), and AFAICS the loop will never terminate
>>> other than by the call to exit(0).
>>>
>>> Also unclear why all output is to stderr
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>> ------
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> L50: fputs("Error occurred while closing handle", stderr);
>>>>> Will this output include a newline?
>>>> thanks for catching this
>>>>>
>>>>> L62: char lib[PATH_MAX];
>>>>> Recommend '+1' for NULL termination space.
>>>>>
>>>>> L63: snprintf(lib, sizeof (lib),
>>>>> "%s/lib/sparcv9/server/libjvm.so", path);
>>>>> I don't think snprintf() will NULL terminate if the buffer is
>>>>> full.
>>>>> Add: lib[PATH_MAX] = '\0';
>>>>>
>>>>> L180: strncpy(path, argv[1], PATH_MAX);
>>>>> strncpy() won't NULL terminate if buffer is full.
>>>>> Add: path[PATH_MAX] = '\0';
>>>> actually from the manpage snprintf does include a NULL termination
>>>> character and strncpy does not,
>>>> so I have wrote
>>>> strncpy(path, argv[1], PATH_MAX);
>>>> path[PATH_MAX - 1] = '\0';
>>>>
>>>> and a question to you, since snprintf does handle NULL termination,
>>>> will
>>>> it be more reasonable to use it here as well,
>>>> snprintf(path, sizeof (path), "%s", argv[1] );
>>>> or, since we do not need any formatted string here just use two lines I
>>>> wrote above?
>>>>
>>>> If you are ok with it, I will not send a new webrev, just add this
>>>> fixes
>>>> in the result commit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that's it...
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tested: the fix has been tested on all platforms with the
>>>>>> hotspot/test/runtime testset
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
More information about the hotspot-runtime-dev
mailing list