RFR: JDK-8032050: TEST_BUG: java/rmi/activation/Activatable/shutdownGracefully/ShutdownGracefully.java fails intermittently

Tristan Yan tristan.yan at oracle.com
Sat Feb 15 02:53:15 UTC 2014

Thank you Stuart
This is nice. I thought two variables were weird but I didn’t figure out the right solution.  Also I wasn’t so sure why we print out so many messages now it’s clear to me.
I’m sorry I have to ask you review this again.

On Feb 15, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hi Tristan,
> OK, we're getting close. Just a couple things about ShutdownGracefully.java.
> It's a bit clumsy to have both a boolean and a message string to keep track of the state of the test, but by itself this isn't such a big deal.
> A bigger deal is the lack of exception chaining. If we catch an unexpected exception at line 162, its class and message are printed out, but its stack trace isn't. If this were to occur it might be fiendishly difficult to debug.
> The TimeoutException isn't chained up either, but this isn't so bad, since there's only one place the timeout can occur. Still, it's good to chain exceptions where possible.
> There's another failure case that doesn't have an exception at all, which is when the registration request we're expecting to fail actually succeeds. This doesn't have an exception, but we should consider creating one.
> Here's an approach to getting rid of the boolean+string and also chaining up exceptions. The key insight is that an exception can be created in a different place from where it's thrown.
> Instead of the boolean+stream, have a variable of type Exception that's initialized to null. Anyplace where we catch an exception that indicates failure, fill in this variable. The idea is that if this exception variable is non-null, a failure has occurred. The exception being non-null replaces the boolean, and the exception message replaces the failure string. In addition, the exception has a stack trace, which is essential for debugging.
> For the case where we don't get the expected exception (i.e., registration succeeds unexpectedly), simply set the exception variable to a newly created exception, but don't throw it yet. For example,
>    exception = new RuntimeException(
>        "The registration request succeeded unexpectedly");
> At the place where we catch an unexpected exception, wrap the caught exception in a new RuntimeException with a message like "caught unexpected exception". The reason to do this is so we can add an additional message. The stack trace will also be a bit easier to follow.
> For the timeout, just assign the TimeoutException to the exception variable.
> Also, at each location where the exception variable is assigned to, print out a message at that point. It will at least show the state of the test to be a failure. The reason is that, if rmid.destroy() were to throw an exception from the finally-block, our carefully recorded exception state will be thrown away. (An alternative would be to put this into its own try-block, and add any exceptions caught from it to the suppressed exception list of the exception variable, but it's not clear to me that this is worth it.)
> At the end of the test, if the exception variable is non-null, call TestLibrary.bomb() with it to fail the test.
> Finally, one typo: "prcoess".
> Thanks for updating this webrev again.
> s'marks
> On 2/13/14 12:25 AM, Tristan Yan wrote:
>> Thank you Stuart
>> I have fixed comment in JavaVM.java. Dealing with different cases in
>> ShutdownGracefully.java, two variables were added. One is a flag indicate test
>> passed or not. Other variable keeps the error message when test failed. I put
>> TestLibrary.bomb in the bottom of the main method which only shows test fail
>> message.
>> Could you review it again
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tyan/JDK-8032050/webrev.04/
>> Tristan
>> On 02/13/2014 05:29 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
>>> Hi Tristan,
>>> JavaVM.waitFor looks mostly fine. The indentation of the start of the
>>> waitFor(timeout) javadoc comment is a bit off, though; please fix.
>>> There are still some adjustments that need to be made in
>>> ShutdownGracefully.java. Both have to do with the case where the last
>>> registration succeeds unexpectedly -- this is the one that we expect to fail.
>>> First, if this registration has succeeded unexpectedly, that means rmid is
>>> still running. If that occurs, the call to rmid.waitFor(timeout) will
>>> inevitably time out. It may be worth calling rmid.destroy() directly at this
>>> point.
>>> Second, still in the succeeded-unexpectedly case, at line 154
>>> TestLibrary.bomb() is called. This throws an exception, but it's caught by the
>>> catch-block at lines 157-158, which calls TestLibrary.bomb() again, saying
>>> "unexpected exception". Except that this is kind of expected, since it was
>>> thrown from an earlier call to TestLibrary.bomb(). This is quite confusing.
>>> There are several cases that need to be handled.
>>> 1. Normal case. Registration fails as expected, rmid has terminated
>>> gracefully. Test passes.
>>> 2. Rmid is still running and has processed the registration request
>>> successfully. Need to kill rmid and fail the test.
>>> 3. Rmid is still running but is in some bad state where the registration
>>> request failed. Need to kill rmid and fail the test.
>>> 4. Some other unexpected failure. This is what the catch and finally blocks at
>>> lines 157-161 are for.
>>> These four cases need to be handled independently. Ideally they should be
>>> separated from the cleanup code. As noted above, you don't want to throw an
>>> exception from the try-block, because it will get caught by your own catch
>>> block. Similarly, it's tempting to return from the midst of the try-block in
>>> the success case, but this still runs the finally-block. This can be quite
>>> confusing.
>>> A typical technique for dealing with this kind of issue is to record results
>>> of operations from within the try block, and then analyze the results outside,
>>> throwing a test failure (TestLibrary.bomb) at that point, where it won't be
>>> caught by the test's own catch block.
>>> Editoral:
>>> - line 153, there should be a space between 'if' and the opening paren
>>> - line 156, typo, "gracefuuly"
>>> Finally, it would be helpful if you could get webrev to generate the actual
>>> changeset instead of the plain patch, per my other review email.
>>> Thanks,
>>> s'marks
>>> On 2/11/14 9:39 PM, Tristan Yan wrote:
>>>> Thank you for your thorough mail. This is very educational. I took you advice
>>>> and generated a new webrev for this.
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tyan/JDK-8032050/webrev.03/
>>>> I appreciate you can review this again.
>>>> Regards
>>>> Tristan
>>>> On Feb 11, 2014, at 8:32 AM, Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com
>>>> <mailto:stuart.marks at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Tristan,
>>>>> Sorry about my recurring delays.
>>>>> Several comments on these changes.
>>>>> JavaVM.java --
>>>>> The waitFor(timeout) method is mostly ok. The new thread started at line 208
>>>>> and following seems unnecessary, though. This code is reached when a timeout
>>>>> occurs, so throwing TimeoutException is the only thing necessary in this case.
>>>>> Should the code to start the new thread be removed?
>>>>> There should be a similar check for vm == null as in the waitFor() [no args]
>>>>> method.
>>>>> ShutdownGracefully.java --
>>>>> The condition that's checked after calling rmid.waitFor(SHUTDOWN_TIMEOUT) is
>>>>> incorrect. It's testing the exit status against zero. Offhand, when and if
>>>>> rmid exits, it might exit with a nonzero exit status. If rmid has exited at
>>>>> this point, then the test should succeed.
>>>>> Instead of testing against zero, the code should catch TimeoutException, which
>>>>> means that rmid is still running. It's probably reasonable to catch
>>>>> TimeoutException, print a message, and then let the finally-block destroy the
>>>>> rmid. Calling TestLibrary.bomb() from within the try-block is confusing, since
>>>>> that method throws an exception, which is then caught by the catch-block, when
>>>>> then calls TestLibrary.bomb() again.
>>>>> We should also make sure to test the success case properly. If rmid.waitFor()
>>>>> returns in a timely fashion without throwing TimeoutException, it doesn't
>>>>> matter what the exit status is. (It might be worth printing it out.) At that
>>>>> point we know that rmid *has* exited gracefully, so we need to set rmid to
>>>>> null so that the finally-block doesn't attempt to destroy rmid redundantly.
>>>>> Some additional messages about rmid having exited and the test passing are
>>>>> also warranted for this case.
>>>>> Some additional cleanup can be done here as well, over and above the changes
>>>>> you've proposed. (This stuff is left over from earlier RMI test messes.) In
>>>>> order to shut down an active object, the code here spawns a new thread that
>>>>> sleeps for a while and then deactivates this object. This isn't necessary. (It
>>>>> might have been necessary in the past.) It's sufficient simply to unexport
>>>>> this object and then deactivate it, directly within the shutdown() method. See
>>>>> test/java/rmi/activation/ActivationSystem/unregisterGroup/UnregisterGroup.java
>>>>> for an example of this. In addition, the run() method can be removed, and the
>>>>> "implements Runnable" declaration can also be removed from the
>>>>> ShutdownGracefully test class.
>>>>> Finally, revisiting some code farther up in the test, the try-block at lines
>>>>> 135-140 issues a registration request that the test expects to fail. If it
>>>>> succeeds, the message at line 139 isn't very clear; it should say that the
>>>>> registration request succeeded unexpectedly. This should cause the test to
>>>>> fail. We still probably want to go through the waitFor(timeout) path and
>>>>> eventual rmid cleanup, but a flag should be set here to ensure that the test
>>>>> indeed fails if the registration succeeds unexpectedly, and the messages
>>>>> should clearly indicate that this is going on.
>>>>> A good way to test this last case is to change rmid's security manager to the
>>>>> normal security manager java.lang.SecurityManager instead of
>>>>> TestSecurityManager.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> s'marks
>>>>> On 2/10/14 2:59 AM, Tristan Yan wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Stuart
>>>>>> Could you help to review this.
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>> Tristan
>>>>>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Tristan Yan <tristan.yan at oracle.com
>>>>>> <mailto:tristan.yan at oracle.com>
>>>>>> <mailto: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.
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tyan/JDK-8032050/webrev.02/
>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>> Tristan
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> s'marks
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tyan/JDK-8032050/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>> Tristan
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tyan/JDK-8032050/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>>> Description:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>> s'marks

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list