RFR: JDK-8212828 Allow POSIX_SPAWN to be used for ProcessImpl on Linux

Roger Riggs Roger.Riggs at oracle.com
Tue Oct 23 19:51:54 UTC 2018

Hi David, et.al.

What would be the rest of the plan for testing?
Usually, changes come with tests and a plan.
What build parameters are needed to run a full set of tests with the change?

Are there build changes needed?

Thanks, Roger

On 10/23/2018 03:26 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
> My plans to try jdk/submit have fallen through unfortunately, as I
> cannot seem to gain direct or indirect access to that system.  So I
> guess I'm looking for any reviews on this patch now.  Thomas has
> volunteered to sponsor.
> Thanks.
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:49 AM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here you go:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212828
>> If noone else steps in, I can sponsor the change for you.
>> Cheers, Thomas
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:19 PM David Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Sure.  I don't have any tracking information on the bugreport one I
>>> submitted, but if you can track that down and promote it, it would
>>> save you some typing.  Otherwise whatever you can do would be great,
>>> thanks.
>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:02 AM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Oh, I can open a bug report on JBS for you. Should I?
>>>> (Now I understand the "reuse bug id").
>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:18 PM David Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've submitted a bug report via bugreport.java.com.  If/when it gets
>>>>> promoted to a proper JIRA with an issue number, I'll see if I can put
>>>>> the patch up on jdk/submit.
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:42 PM David Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The issue 6850720 isn't _exactly_ to use POSIX_SPAWN for process
>>>>>> launching on Linux, but it's the closest I could find out of what are
>>>>>> really a surprisingly large number of issues that refer to posix_spawn
>>>>>> in one way or another relating to ProcessImpl.  There's a different
>>>>>> issue to move from vfork to posix_spawn on Solaris, but I wasn't sure
>>>>>> if that one was quite right to hang this off of.  Maybe it should be
>>>>>> yet another issue of its own.
>>>>>> Anyway: this is a follow-up to the email thread entitled "Runtime.exec
>>>>>> : vfork() concerns and a fix proposal", where it was casually
>>>>>> mentioned that maybe posix_spawn could become an option on Linux,
>>>>>> whereafter it could be thoroughly tested by brave individuals and
>>>>>> eventually maybe become the default on that platform, obsoleting the
>>>>>> vfork support for good.
>>>>>> The following patch does just that.  I've tested it launching a
>>>>>> multi-process WildFly instance a bunch of times, in conjunction with
>>>>>> the conveniently existent "jdk.lang.Process.launchMechanism" property,
>>>>>> and nothing exploded so here it is.  The usual deal with git patches:
>>>>>> apply directly through "patch -p1".

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list