I should have explicitly invited Michael and Xueming to review, as well. On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:00, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote: > Martin, > > I filed the following to track this: > 6944584: Improvements to subprocess handling on Unix
Thanks. > I took a look at the preliminary changes. > * I'm not sure we can remove any previous authors names. We've considered doing that en masse. I think it's only old copyrights that can never be removed. > * I assume the second part, buffering of data after process > termination has not been implemented yet, right? Right. > Otherwise look good. > > Michael: > You may want to take a look at these changes also. > > -Chris. > > Martin Buchholz wrote: >> >> Chris and/or Alan, >> I am planning some improvements to Process. >> Please file a bug. >> >> Synopsis: Improvements to subprocess handling on Unix >> Description: >> Looking at UNIXProcess.java.linux, there are a number of possible >> improvements: >> >> The "process reaper" thread should run in a thread pool to save on >> thread creation in case of repeated process creation. Its stack size >> should be small. >> >> If the process reaper thread throws a non-IOException (e.g. OOME) >> the thread creating the subprocess will hang, >> waiting for a signal from the reaper thread. >> >> The JDK knows when the subprocess terminates. >> At that time, we cannot yet close the streams, >> because there may still be unread buffered data, but... >> the file descriptors underlying the subprocess streams >> can be drained, then closed, and the drained bytes can >> be added to the internal buffer. This will solve most cases >> of (pandemic) poor file stream hygiene leading to >> file descriptor exhaustion or simply poor performance. >> >> Preliminary fix here: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/UNIXProcess/ >
