On 16/05/2013 8:44 PM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 13:55 +0200, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
I updated the test program and the patch in java.lang.ref.Reference
accordingly.
As for the problem of reproducibility, in my tests I had a 100%
reproduction rate with the previous version of the test.
However, now I also set -XX:-UseTLAB and -Xmx16M in the test program as
suggested in some other emails.
I will report back with a new webrev after some testing on more
platforms as suggested by David.
a new webrev for the patch is at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/7038914/webrev.2/
I think the comment is somewhat confusing, but then the details here are
quite confusing. I guess the key part of this is that if OOME is thrown
we don't want to try and load InterruptedException - though I'm unclear,
based on normal exception processing semantics, when that might occur.
Testing:
jprt; manual tests with the test program on a jdk with and without the
patch on linux 32/64 bit, windows 32/64 bit, and sparc 32/64 bit. The
test program showed 100% reproduction of the error without the patch,
and 100% fix success with a jdk containing the patch (each multiple
tries at that).
Note that jprt seems to run all jdk unit tests always anyway.
Thanks for the detailed testing and validation.
I also fixed the copyright date in java/lang/ref/Reference.java.
Not necessary for JDK code as they rely on periodic updates (in contrast
to some hotspot teams).
If this patch is considered acceptable, I need two reviewers as usual
(possibly from GC/hsx team and one from jdk), and one sponsor pushing
the change. (I am still intent on making Peter the author of the patch
as both the change and the test program came from him)
I am not even author for the jdk, but can act as a non-Reviewer reviewer
for the gc/hsx team.
You can count me as a Reviewer and sponsor. I think only a second JDK/TL
Reviewer is needed here as no impact on hotspot.
Thanks for your efforts with this.
David
-----
Thanks a lot,
Thomas
