> On Oct 15, 2019, at 5:44 PM, Hamlin Li <huaming...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/10/15 2:44 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> I am OK with the change that makes this test more robust.
> Thanks Max.
>>
>> However, I am not an expert in RMI and don't know why the port cannot be
>> released. If verifyPortFree(PORT) on line 60 can always succeed right after
>> TestLibrary.getUnusedRandomPort() tries to create a ServerSocket at PORT and
>> close it, this means the OS underneath spends no time in freeing the port.
>
> No, the port is not freed here, it's only freed by unexportObject.
I meant the auto close inside getUnusedRandomPort().
>
> But the original code is a little bit faulty at verifyPortInUse, it should be
> as below, I have also updated the webrev in place:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8134599/webrev.01/
>
> @@ -101,6 +112,7 @@
> private static void verifyPortInUse(int port) throws IOException {
> try {
> verifyPortFree(port);
> + throw new RuntimeException("port is not in use: " + port);
>
>> Is UnicastRemoteObject.unexportObject() also doing something similar? I see
>> that the ServerSocket inside is closed on TCPTransport.java:280. Is it
>> reliably called?
>
> In my understanding, it's not a sync operation, it's async, that means when
> unexportObject returns, it just triggers the port release, does not mean it
> already released the port.
Ah....
>
>>
>> Even after this bug is resolved, I'd suggest add some logging and rerun this
>> test unchanged multiple times to see what really happened.
>
> Unfortunately, most of time this kind of issue is not easy to reproduce by
> running it multiple times. In my point of view, current logging is sufficient
> for diagnosing.
I see some logging calls inside source code. Maybe you can set a logging config
file to let it show more?
--Max
>
> Thank you
>
> -Hamlin
>
>>
>> --Max
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 2019, at 11:04 AM, Hamlin Li <huaming...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for reviewing, I updated change at:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8134599/webrev.01/
>>>
>>> it does not increase minimum time time and consider timeout factor at the
>>> same time.
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>> -Hamlin
>>>
