On 25 sep 2014, at 12:24, Jaroslav Bachorik <jaroslav.bacho...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 09/25/2014 12:13 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote: >> I wonder if the p.waitFor() is needed? What if the process launching expired >> with a timeout and now we are still waiting for the process to end - >> wouldn’t that kind of defeat the timeout? In any case, the destroyForcibly() >> should end the process whether we wait for it or not. > > It would be wonderful but the javadoc states that the result of > destroyForcibly() call depends on the implementation and may actually not > force close the process and one should use waitFor() to make sure that the > process has in fact died. It also mentions that Processes returned by ProcessBuilder.start() will be terminated forcibly so we can rely on that. I don’t know how much it helps to wait for the process. If it wasn’t terminated, then we risk blocking forever here - still without having terminated the process. > I wonder whether JTReg kills the process tree on timeout - in case it does > using waitFor() would guarantee that there would be no zombies left. Without > using waitFor() and semantics of destroyForcibly() there might be situations > when non-functional stuck processes are left behind (not sure how probable, > however). JTreg currently has no process tree handling - there is work in progress to add it as it is clearly desirable. /Staffan > > -JB- > >> >> /Staffan >> >> >> On 25 sep 2014, at 11:54, Jaroslav Bachorik <jaroslav.bacho...@oracle.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Please, review the following change to the JDK test library class >>> >>> Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8059034 >>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8059034/webrev.00 >>> >>> Currently, the ProcessTools.startProcess() might leave a dangling process >>> behind when a timeout or interrupt happens. The solution is to try and >>> forcibly terminate the forked process when this happens. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -JB- >> >
