RFR for JDK-6772009 Intermittent test failure: java/util/concurrent/locks/ReentrantLock/CancelledLockLoops.java test failed with 'Completed != 2'

Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Thu Nov 21 00:28:58 UTC 2013

I again tried and failed to reproduce a failure.  Even if I go whole hog
and multiply TIMEOUT by 100 and divide ITERS by 100, the test continues to
PASS.  Is it just me?!

I don't think there's any reason to make result long.  It's not even used
except to inhibit hotspot optimizations.

+        private volatile long result = 17;//Can get int overflow,so using long

need to fix spelling and spacing below.

+                barrier.await();//If a BrokeBarrierException happens
here(due to

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:52 AM, srikalyan <
srikalyan.chandrashekar at oracle.com> wrote:

>  Hi Martin , apologies for the delay , was trying to get help for hosting
> my webrev.  .  Please see inline text.
> On 11/19/13, 10:35 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Hi Kalyan,
>  None of us can review your changes yet because you haven't given us a
> URL of your webrev.
> It is located here
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cl/host_for_srikalyan_6772009_CancelledLockLoops/
>  I've tried to make the jsr166 copy of CancelledLockLoops fail by
> adjusting ITERS and TIMEOUT radically up and down, but the test just keeps
> on passing for me.  Hints appreciated.
> Bump up the timeout to 500ms and you will see a failure (i can see it
> consistently on my machine Linux 64bit,8GBRAM,dual cores, with JDK 1.8
> latest any promoted build).
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:39 PM, srikalyan chandrashekar <
> srikalyan.chandrashekar at oracle.com> wrote:
>>    Suggested Fix:
>>> a) Decrease the timeout from 100 to 50ms which will ensure that the test
>>> will pass even on faster machines
>  This doesn't look like a permanent fix - it just makes the failing case
> rarer.
> Thats true , the other way is to make the main thread wait on TIMEOUT
> after firing the interrupts instead of other way round, but that would be
> over-optimization which probably is not desirable as well.  The 50 ms was
> arrived at empirically after running several 100 times on multiple
> configurations and did not cause failures.
> --
> Thanks
> kalyan
> Ph: (408)-585-8040

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list