On Mon, 24 Nov 2025 19:53:39 GMT, Daniel Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote:

>> An experimental change to SelectorManager::shutdown unveiled a potential 
>> deadlock between the SelectorManager thread trying to stop the 
>> HttpClientImpl, and an executor thread concurrently trying to return a 
>> connection to the pool.
>> 
>> The issue seems to be caused by the ConnectionPool::returnToPool trying to 
>> close the returned connection when stopping, while holding the 
>> ConnectionPool state lock, and the SelectorManager thread trying to close a 
>> pooled connection, holding the connection stateLock and trying to close the 
>> channel, which caused the CleanupTrigger to fire and attempt to remove the 
>> connection from the pool.
>> 
>> This problem was observed once with the 
>> java/net/httpclient/ThrowingSubscribersAsLimitingAsync.java test.
>> 
>> To avoid the problem, the proposed fix is to wait until the 
>> ConnectionPool::stateLock has been released before actually closing the 
>> connection, and to wait until the PlainHttpConnection::stateLock has been 
>> released before actually closing the channel. Indeed, there should be no 
>> need to close those while holding the lock.
>> 
>> This PR was recreated due to a bad merge pushed to 
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/28421
>
> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a 
> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains eight commits:
> 
>  - Merge branch 'master' into ConnectionCloseLock-8372198
>  - Merge master
>  - 8372198: Avoid closing PlainHttpConnection while holding a lock
>  - Merge branch 'master' into SelectorManagerVT-8372159
>  - Copyright years
>  - Review feedback on test
>  - Revert changes to SelectorManager::shutdown
>  - 8372159: HttpClient SelectorManager thread could be a VirtualThread

I added a test - but so far I haven't been able to make it fail locally, with 
or without the fix. I sent the test to the CI - will see how it goes there...

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28430#issuecomment-3576556472

Reply via email to