Review Request for CR : 7144861 RMI activation tests are too slow

Stuart Marks stuart.marks at
Mon May 7 22:29:13 UTC 2012

Hi Olivier,

I think we agree that there's a lot more cleanup that could be done here, but 
that we should just press forward with this and postpone the cleanup until 
later. I don't really like postponing things but I don't want to hold up the 
nice optimizations you've done.

I do have one point to resolve, however, regarding InterruptedException:

On 5/7/12 10:35 AM, Olivier Lagneau wrote:
> David Holmes said on date 5/6/2012 2:30 PM:
>> On 5/05/2012 11:50 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
>>> If we catch an InterruptedException while sleeping, we reassert the
>>> interrupt bit by interrupting the current thread. This is usually good
>>> practice. In this case though we go around the loop again, retry, and
>>> sleep again. But if we call sleep() when the interrupt bit is set, it
>>> returns immediately. As it stands, after being interrupted, this code
>>> will retry a bunch of times effectively without sleeping and will then
>>> return false.
>>> I guess if we're going to go to the trouble of reasserting the interrupt
>>> bit we might as well return false immediately.
>> Does anything in this testing framework actually interrupt any threads?
>> Elsewhere in this test the interrupt, should it be possible, just skips to
>> the next loop iteration without being re-asserted. So either we need to
>> re-assert always or never - and I suspect never.
> Agreed. I think we should just ignore these interrupts since I don't think any
> rmi test of code in framework
> might interrupts threads running that code. So thin we never need to re-assert.

There are several places in the existing code where it catches IE and 
re-asserts the interrupt bit. This makes sense for cases like 
ActivationLibrary.safeDestroy() where the only thing it can do is return (i.e., 
there's no loop here). The caller can distinguish the interrupted case from the 
normal case by checking the thread's interrupt bit.

In other cases the existing code catches IE and either continues around the 
loop (ActivationLibrary.deactivate) or reasserts the interrupt bit before 
continuing around the loop (e.g., RMID.start). I think both of these are wrong. 
Basically these loops are waiting for something to happen. If the code gets an 
IE it should terminate the loop. The only question in my mind is whether it 
should reassert the interrupt bit before doing so.

David, I know you know this stuff pretty well, what do you think?

Offhand I don't know whether this test framework uses interruption or not. If 
it doesn't, it seems reasonable that it might be added in the future. It just 
bugs me that there's code to catch IE that just ignores it. I don't think we 
should go out of our way to do something special in the case of IE, but 
returning or breaking out of the loop instead of ignoring IE seems pretty sensible.

BTW a good background article on threads and interrupts is here: [1].



More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list