Yup, it was part of my list ;) I will create the tickets to clearly track the work to be done.
I also propose to already create the PR with JDK25 update to see where we are failing and update step by step. Thanks Jean-Louis ! Regards JB On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 4:02 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks JB > I was looking at the AnnotatedMBean which is using the security manager to > get the subject for auditing. > > We need to rework it so we can preserve the auditing feature > Long story short, a ticket with subtasks would be ideal so we can all help > -- > Jean-Louis Monteiro > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 3:55 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi > > > > We have some work to do for JDK25 (Scheduler, SecurityManager, > > dependencies check, ..). > > > > I think it's reasonable to target 6.3.0 for JDK25 (including > > VirtualThread tech preview, CI updates, etc). > > > > I will create the tickets and start to work on this with other > > contributors. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 2:08 PM Christopher Shannon > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > > > JDK 25 is something I haven't tried out yet (I'm not sure if others have) > > > so if you can dig into the issue more that would be welcome. There are > > > going to be more things to fix as well to make ActiveMQ compatible with > > JDK > > > 25 as well so it's something that just needs to be worked on in general > > now > > > that JDK 25 is released. > > > > > > JB and/or Matt, do you guys have any thoughts on which version we > > > should target JDK 25 compatibility with for ActiveMQ? It might depend how > > > much needs to be fixed, Artemis just went through some of this recently: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-5711 > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 6:19 AM Jonathan Gallimore < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'm currently building ActiveMQ using Java 25, and running into some > > > > problems where running tests will just 'lock up'. An example > > > > is JmsSchedulerTest. These two threads are both blocked: > > > > > > > > "main" #3 [5635] prio=5 os_prio=31 cpu=657.39ms elapsed=1429.54s > > > > tid=0x000000013401ee00 nid=5635 waiting on condition > > [0x000000016bacd000] > > > > java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (parking) > > > > at jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe.park(java.base@25/Native Method) > > > > - parking to wait for <0x00000007e0cdd530> (a > > > > java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock$NonfairSync) > > > > at java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.park(java.base@25 > > > > /LockSupport.java:223) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedLongSynchronizer.acquire(java.base@25 > > > > /AbstractQueuedLongSynchronizer.java:410) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedLongSynchronizer.acquire(java.base@25 > > > > /AbstractQueuedLongSynchronizer.java:650) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock$WriteLock.lock(java.base@25 > > > > /ReentrantReadWriteLock.java:966) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.store.kahadb.scheduler.JobSchedulerStoreImpl.unload(JobSchedulerStoreImpl.java:214) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.store.kahadb.AbstractKahaDBStore.doStop(AbstractKahaDBStore.java:141) > > > > at org.apache.activemq.util.ServiceSupport.stop(ServiceSupport.java:71) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.broker.scheduler.SchedulerBroker.stop(SchedulerBroker.java:223) > > > > at org.apache.activemq.broker.BrokerFilter.stop(BrokerFilter.java:194) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.broker.TransactionBroker.stop(TransactionBroker.java:209) > > > > at > > org.apache.activemq.broker.BrokerService$3.stop(BrokerService.java:2363) > > > > at org.apache.activemq.util.ServiceStopper.stop(ServiceStopper.java:41) > > > > at > > org.apache.activemq.broker.BrokerService.stop(BrokerService.java:849) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.broker.scheduler.JobSchedulerTestSupport.tearDown(JobSchedulerTestSupport.java:69) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$DMH/0x000001ff01108000.invokeVirtual(java.base@25 > > > > /LambdaForm$DMH) > > > > at > > java.lang.invoke.LambdaForm$MH/0x000001ff01108800.invoke(java.base@25 > > > > /LambdaForm$MH) > > > > at java.lang.invoke.Invokers$Holder.invokeExact_MT(java.base@25 > > > > /Invokers$Holder) > > > > at > > jdk.internal.reflect.DirectMethodHandleAccessor.invokeImpl(java.base@25 > > > > /DirectMethodHandleAccessor.java:154) > > > > at jdk.internal.reflect.DirectMethodHandleAccessor.invoke(java.base@25 > > > > /DirectMethodHandleAccessor.java:104) > > > > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(java.base@25/Method.java:565) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:59) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:12) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:56) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.invokeMethod(RunAfters.java:46) > > > > at > > > > > > org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:33) > > > > at org.junit.rules.TestWatcher$1.evaluate(TestWatcher.java:61) > > > > at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:306) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner$1.evaluate(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:100) > > > > at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runLeaf(ParentRunner.java:366) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:103) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:63) > > > > at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$4.run(ParentRunner.java:331) > > > > at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:79) > > > > at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:329) > > > > at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$100(ParentRunner.java:66) > > > > at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:293) > > > > at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:306) > > > > at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:413) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.execute(JUnit4Provider.java:316) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.executeWithRerun(JUnit4Provider.java:240) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.executeTestSet(JUnit4Provider.java:214) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.invoke(JUnit4Provider.java:155) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.runSuitesInProcess(ForkedBooter.java:385) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.execute(ForkedBooter.java:162) > > > > at > > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.run(ForkedBooter.java:507) > > > > at > > > > > > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.main(ForkedBooter.java:495) > > > > > > > > "JobScheduler:JMS" #129 [42779] daemon prio=5 os_prio=31 cpu=10.67ms > > > > elapsed=1417.10s tid=0x000000013200c000 nid=42779 waiting on condition > > > > [0x0000000328c42000] > > > > java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (parking) > > > > at jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe.park(java.base@25/Native Method) > > > > - parking to wait for <0x00000007e0cdd530> (a > > > > java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock$NonfairSync) > > > > at java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.park(java.base@25 > > > > /LockSupport.java:223) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedLongSynchronizer.acquire(java.base@25 > > > > /AbstractQueuedLongSynchronizer.java:410) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedLongSynchronizer.acquire(java.base@25 > > > > /AbstractQueuedLongSynchronizer.java:650) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock$WriteLock.lock(java.base@25 > > > > /ReentrantReadWriteLock.java:966) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.store.kahadb.scheduler.JobSchedulerStoreImpl$8.visit(JobSchedulerStoreImpl.java:696) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.store.kahadb.data.KahaAddScheduledJobCommand.visit(KahaAddScheduledJobCommand.java:283) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.store.kahadb.scheduler.JobSchedulerStoreImpl.process(JobSchedulerStoreImpl.java:691) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.store.kahadb.AbstractKahaDBStore.store(AbstractKahaDBStore.java:495) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.store.kahadb.AbstractKahaDBStore.store(AbstractKahaDBStore.java:403) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.store.kahadb.scheduler.JobSchedulerImpl.doSchedule(JobSchedulerImpl.java:252) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.store.kahadb.scheduler.JobSchedulerImpl.schedule(JobSchedulerImpl.java:100) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.store.kahadb.scheduler.JobSchedulerImpl.mainLoop(JobSchedulerImpl.java:782) > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.activemq.store.kahadb.scheduler.JobSchedulerImpl.run(JobSchedulerImpl.java:699) > > > > at java.lang.Thread.runWith(java.base@25/Thread.java:1487) > > > > at java.lang.Thread.run(java.base@25/Thread.java:1474) > > > > > > > > Looking at the ReentrantReadWriteLock$NonfairSync in question in a heap > > > > dump, the 'firstReader' is the JobScheduler:JMS thread, which I assume > > has > > > > a read lock on this already and both threads are attempting to acquire > > a > > > > write lock. > > > > > > > > Weirdly, I don't see this with Java 21. I'll try and dig in to get some > > > > more information on what's happening, and if appropriate, send a patch. > > > > > > > > Any thoughts are welcome - and if no-one has any thoughts, that's cool > > too, > > > > I'm happy to continue working through this and report back. > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
