martinrb at google.com
Fri Apr 16 16:09:31 UTC 2010
I should have explicitly invited Michael and Xueming to review, as well.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:00, Chris Hegarty <chris.hegarty at oracle.com> wrote:
> I filed the following to track this:
> 6944584: Improvements to subprocess handling on Unix
> I took a look at the preliminary changes.
> * I'm not sure we can remove any previous authors names.
We've considered doing that en masse.
I think it's only old copyrights that can never be removed.
> * I assume the second part, buffering of data after process
> termination has not been implemented yet, right?
> Otherwise look good.
> You may want to take a look at these changes also.
> Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> Chris and/or Alan,
>> I am planning some improvements to Process.
>> Please file a bug.
>> Synopsis: Improvements to subprocess handling on Unix
>> Looking at UNIXProcess.java.linux, there are a number of possible
>> The "process reaper" thread should run in a thread pool to save on
>> thread creation in case of repeated process creation. Its stack size
>> should be small.
>> If the process reaper thread throws a non-IOException (e.g. OOME)
>> the thread creating the subprocess will hang,
>> waiting for a signal from the reaper thread.
>> The JDK knows when the subprocess terminates.
>> At that time, we cannot yet close the streams,
>> because there may still be unread buffered data, but...
>> the file descriptors underlying the subprocess streams
>> can be drained, then closed, and the drained bytes can
>> be added to the internal buffer. This will solve most cases
>> of (pandemic) poor file stream hygiene leading to
>> file descriptor exhaustion or simply poor performance.
>> Preliminary fix here:
More information about the core-libs-dev