[8u-dev] RFR (S): JDK-8194653: Deadlock involving FileSystems.getDefault and System.loadLibrary call
sci at amazon.com
Tue Apr 23 14:47:07 UTC 2019
Alan / David,
I agree this could have also been a class library only solution. Looking at the problem I saw a few things:
- Just above the patched code in create_vm() there is similar code for a JSR 292 deadlock problem where classes are pre-loaded as a solution. I felt this matched the type of fix I was making here.
- There is plenty of other class pre loading / initialization done in create_vm()
- If there was a need to put an early switch on the pre-load of this class, I felt this be more natural to wrap that here
- The problem doesn't exist at jdk9+ because the classes causing this problem get loaded and initialized as part of the initialization sequence "naturally" (ie: I see no indication that they are loaded to solve this specific problem). I agree that jdk8 is unlikely to have dramatic changes in initialization moving forward, but putting it as part of (to me) the more streamlined create_vm() function made sense from a "safety" perspective as it felt more controlled and unlikely to be perturbed by any other change in the initialization code flow (class library or vm).
To follow on this last couple of points, as noted in the defect (and Brian Burkhalter also observes through running the reproducer test), this doesn't happen at jdk9+ because initialization has changed and the class got loaded "for free". The reproducer test certainly applies to 13 (it's a valid check) but you can also eyeball the classes loaded and see the effect.
On 4/22/19, 11:42 PM, "Alan Bateman" <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2019 23:11, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
> On 23/04/2019 7:04 am, Sciampacone, Ryan wrote:
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8194653
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~phh/8194653/webrev.00/
> Why does this need to be pushed to the VM? Why not do the
> pre-loading/initializing at the Java level?
Ryan - do you have a test case that demonstrates the issue with the main
line (jdk/jdk)? I think we need that in order to study this issue a bit
more closely and see what options are available. I see Paul has pasted
in a stack trace from January and I think it would be interesting to see
what command line options were used. I don't have a good sense yet how
this might be fixed but it may need work in FilePermission and/or
initializing the default file system provider at a different time during
More information about the core-libs-dev