RFR: JDK-8032050: TEST_BUG: java/rmi/activation/Activatable/shutdownGracefully/ShutdownGracefully.java fails intermittently
tristan.yan at oracle.com
Mon Feb 10 10:59:25 UTC 2014
Could you help to review this.
On Jan 31, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Tristan Yan <tristan.yan at oracle.com> wrote:
> Thank you for fixing JDK-8023541. Then I leave ActivationLibrary.java for now.
> I still did some clean up following your suggestion.
> 1. I changed waitFor(long timeout) method, this method is going to use code like Process.waitFor(timeout, unit). This can be backported to JDK7. Also exitValue is kept as a return value. For making sure there is no Pipe leak, a cleanup thread will start when timeout happens.
> 2. Change in ShutdownGracefully is a little tricky. I think we should just destroy JVM once exception is thrown. So I move the wait logic into try block instead keep them in finally block.
> Can you receive it again.
> Thank you
> On 01/29/2014 03:16 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> Hi Tristan,
>> I don't want to put the workaround into ActivationLibrary.rmidRunning() for a null return from the lookup, because this is only a workaround for an actual bug in rmid initialization. See the review I just posted for JDK-8023541.
>> Adding JavaVM.waitFor(timeout) is something that would be useful in general, but it needs to be handled carefully. It uses the new Process.waitFor(timeout, unit) which is new in Java SE 8; this makes backporting to 7 more complicated. Not clear whether we'll do so, but I don't want to forclose the opportunity without discussion. It's also not clear how one can get the vm's exit status after JavaVM.waitFor() has returned true. With the Process API it's possible simply to call waitFor() or exitValue(). With JavaVM, a new API needs to be created, or the rule has to be established that one must call JavaVM.waitFor() to collect the exit status as well as to close the pipes from the subprocess. If JavaVM.waitFor(timeout, unit) is called without subsequently calling JavaVM.waitFor(), the pipes are leaked.
>> In ShutdownGracefully.java, the finally-block needs to check to see if rmid is still running, and if it is, to shut it down. Simply calling waitFor(timeout, unit) isn't sufficient, because if the rmid process is still running, it will be left running.
>> The straightforward approach would be to call ActivationLibrary.rmidRunning() to test if it's still running. Unfortunately this isn't quite right, because rmidRunning() has a timeout loop in it -- which should probably be removed. (I think there's a bug for this.) Another approach would be simply to call rmid.destroy(). This calls rmid's shutdown() method first, which is reasonable, but I'm not sure it kills the process if that fails. In any case, this already has a timeout loop waiting for the process to die, so ShutdownGracefully.java needn't use a new waitFor(timeout, unit) call.
>> Removing the commented-out code that starts with "no longer needed" is good, and removing the ShutdownDetectThread is also good, since that's unnecessary.
>> There are some more cleanups I have in mind here but I'd like to see a revised webrev before proceeding.
>> On 1/25/14 8:57 PM, Tristan Yan wrote:
>>> Hi Stuart
>>> Thank you for your review and suggestion.
>>> Yes, since this failure mode is very hard to be reproduced. I guess it's make sense to do some hack. And I also noticed in ActivationLibrary.rmidRunning. It does try to look up ActivationSystem but doesn't check if it's null. So I add the logic to make sure we will look up the non-null ActivationSystem. Also I did some cleanup if you don't mind. Add a waitFor(long timeout, TimeUnit unit) for JavaVM. Which we can have a better waitFor control.
>>> I appreciate you can review the code again.
>>> Thank you
>>> On 01/25/2014 10:20 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/14 10:34 PM, Tristan Yan wrote:
>>>>> Hi All
>>>>> Could you review the bug fix for JDK-8032050.
>>>>> This rare happened failure caused because when RMID starts. It don't guarantee
>>>>> sun.rmi.server.Activation.startActivation finishes.
>>>>> Fix by adding a iterative getSystem with a 5 seconds timeout.
>>>> Hi Tristan,
>>>> Adding a timing/retry loop into this test isn't the correct approach for fixing this test.
>>>> The timing loop isn't necessary because there is already a timing loop in RMID.start() in the RMI test library. (There's another timing loop in ActivationLibrary.rmidRunning() which should probably be removed.) So the intent of this library call is that it start rmid and wait for it to become ready. That logic doesn't need to be added to the test.
>>>> In the bug report JDK-8032050 you had mentioned that the NullPointerException was suspicious. You're right! I took a look and it seemed like it was related to JDK-8023541, and I added a note to this effect to the bug report. The problem here is that rmid can come up and transiently return null instead of the stub of the activation system. That's what JDK-8023541 covers. I think that rmid itself needs to be fixed, though modifying the timing loop in the RMI test library to wait for rmid to come up *and* for the lookup to return non-null is an easy way to fix the problem. (Or at least cover it up.)
>>>> The next step in the analysis is to determine, given that ActivationLibrary.getSystem can sometimes return null, whether this has actually caused this test failure. This is pretty easy to determine; just hack in a line "system = null" in the right place and run the test. I've done this, and the test times out and the output log is pretty much identical to the one in the bug report. (I recommend you try this yourself.) So I think it's fairly safe to say that the problem in JDK-8023541 has caused the failure listed in JDK-8032050.
>>>> I can see a couple ways to proceed here. One way is just to close this out as a duplicate of JDK-8023541 since that bug caused this failure.
>>>> Another is that this test could use some cleaning up. This bug certainly covers a failure, but the messages emitted are confusing and in some cases completely wrong. For example, the "rmid has shutdown" message at line 180 is incorrect, because in this case rmid is still running and the wait() call has timed out. Most of the code here can be replaced with calls to various bits of the RMI test library. There are a bunch of other things in this test that could be cleaned up as well.
>>>> It's up to you how you'd like to proceed.
More information about the core-libs-dev