Hi David, >>> Style query: do we do indent of 2 or 4 in hotspot C code tests ? >> >> >> Fixed in C code. > > > I was asking a question - I'm not sure if we use 2 or 4. Now looking at some > other JVMTI tests they seem to use 4. I didn't do an exhaustive check to see > if there is a predominant style.
Advertising
IMHO we should use 2 for indent because it uses for HotSpot and this is testcase for HotSpot. However, I'm not sure. I will upload new webrev after it is clarified. Thanks, Yasumasa 2017-08-07 13:50 GMT+09:00 David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com>: > Hi Yasumasa, > > On 7/08/2017 2:02 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: >> >> Hi David, >> >> I uploaded new webrev: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8185164/webrev.04/ > > > Thanks for taking up all the suggestions! A few follow ups below ... > >>> I have one concern with the test. Are you certain that the only possible >>> contended-enter event can come from the attempt to lock the >>> GetOwnedMonitorInfoTest.class object? Something from -Xcomp perhaps? The >>> test would likely still pass, but it would be checking the "wrong" event. >> >> >> I guess you mean other place (e.g. in class library) might generate >> MonitorContendedEnter event. >> So I check the class of monitor object in JNI test module. > > > Thanks for that! The change to using lambda may result in unexpected locking > in itself. :) > >>> 27 * @summary Verifies the JVMTI GetOwnedMonitorInfo API >>> >>> That's a bit of an overstatement - this only verifies that a contended >>> monitor does not show up in the set of owned monitors. (Even that is >>> somewhat inaccurate) >> >> >> I modified the summary, but I'm not good at English. >> So please tell me if it is incorrect :-) > > > I would prefer simply: > > @summary Checks that a contended monitor does not show up in the list of > owned monitors > >>> Style-nit: >>> >>> 35 public class GetOwnedMonitorInfoTest implements Runnable { >>> >>> There is no need to implement Runnable and provide the run() method as an >>> instance method of the class because there is no state. The simpler >>> construct would be to define an anonymous inner class when creating the >>> thread: >>> ... >> >> >> Fixed (I use lambda expression in new webrev.) > > > Ok :) > >>> libGetOwnedMonitorInfoTest.c >>> >>> Query: >>> >>> 64 fprintf(stderr, "MonitorContendedEnter: error in JVMTI >>> GetThreadInfo: %d\n", err); >>> >>> do we not have anything to print out a more meaningful error message that >>> the integer value of the JVMTI error code? >> >> >> I added ShowErrorMessage() to show JVMTI error message. >> It uses GetErrorName() JVMTI function. > > > That looks good - thanks! > >>> Style query: do we do indent of 2 or 4 in hotspot C code tests ? >> >> >> Fixed in C code. > > > I was asking a question - I'm not sure if we use 2 or 4. Now looking at some > other JVMTI tests they seem to use 4. I didn't do an exhaustive check to see > if there is a predominant style. > > Thanks, > David > > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Yasumasa >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> David >>> ------ >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Yasumasa >>>> >>>> >>>> 2017-08-06 23:54 GMT+09:00 Daniel D. Daugherty >>>> <daniel.daughe...@oracle.com>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/6/17 1:28 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Dan, Serguei, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Serguei! I can run new testcase on my environment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan, I modified your patch and uploaded as webrev: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8185164/webrev.02/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> * GetOwnedMonitorInfoTest.java >>>>>> - I use Thread#yield() to wait until MonitorContendedEnter >>>>>> event >>>>>> is >>>>>> fired. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please switch back to a small Thread.sleep(). Thread.yield() >>>>> can be a no-op on some platforms which will make the wait >>>>> loop very hot. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> * libGetOwnedMonitorInfoTest.c >>>>>> - I added "volatile" to "status" variable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry I missed that one. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - I moved "event_has_posted = JNI_TRUE" to each before return >>>>>> statement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Good catch. My original setting of event_has_posted had >>>>> a narrow race. >>>>> >>>>> I'm good on the changes. I'll have test results later today. >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yasumasa >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2017/08/06 11:33, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Yasumasa and Serguei, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've made some tweaks to the test and attached an updated patch: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GetOwnedMonitorInfoTest.java changes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - deleted thread 't2' >>>>>>> - made changes to make monitor contention not racy: >>>>>>> - added 'hasEventPosted()' native function >>>>>>> - changed Main to grab the GetOwnedMonitorInfoTest.class monitor >>>>>>> before launching 't1' >>>>>>> - added loop to check hasEventPosted() function while holding >>>>>>> the GetOwnedMonitorInfoTest.class monitor >>>>>>> - moved the delay to this new loop >>>>>>> >>>>>>> libGetOwnedMonitorInfoTest.c changes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - added event_has_posted flag to know when MonitorContendedEnter >>>>>>> event has been posted >>>>>>> - added missing error checks to JVM/TI functions >>>>>>> - print an error message when MonitorContendedEnter or >>>>>>> MonitorContendedEntered gets an incorrect monitor count >>>>>>> - print error and warnings to 'stderr' >>>>>>> - add Java_GetOwnedMonitorInfoTest_hasEventPosted function >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've tested the latest version of test in a repo without the fix >>>>>>> and it fails (as expected). Here's some sample output: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----------System.out:(7/231)---------- >>>>>>> Agent_OnLoad started >>>>>>> Agent_OnLoad finished >>>>>>> Main starting worker thread. >>>>>>> Main waiting for event. >>>>>>> Thread in sync section: Thread-1 >>>>>>> MonitorContendedEnter: Thread-1 owns 1 monitor(s) >>>>>>> MonitorContendedEntered: Thread-1 owns 1 monitor(s) >>>>>>> ----------System.err:(14/931)---------- >>>>>>> MonitorContendedEnter: FAIL: monitorCount should be zero. >>>>>>> java.lang.RuntimeException: FAILED status returned from the agent >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> GetOwnedMonitorInfoTest.main(GetOwnedMonitorInfoTest.java:81) >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> >>>>>>> java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native >>>>>>> Method) >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62) >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:564) >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> com.sun.javatest.regtest.agent.MainWrapper$MainThread.run(MainWrapper.java:115) >>>>>>> at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:844) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JavaTest Message: Test threw exception: java.lang.RuntimeException: >>>>>>> FAILED status returned from the agent >>>>>>> JavaTest Message: shutting down test >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/5/17 12:37 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Yasumasa, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I use the following script to run the test on linux: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> % cat run.sh >>>>>>>> #!/bin/sh >>>>>>>> REPO=<my_repo> >>>>>>>> IMAGES=${REPO}/build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images >>>>>>>> export JAVA_HOME=${IMAGES}/jdk >>>>>>>> export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${IMAGES}/test/hotspot/jtreg/native >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> jtreg -J-Dtest.java.opts='-server' \ >>>>>>>> -jdk ${JAVA_HOME} \ >>>>>>>> -nativepath:${LD_LIBRARY_PATH} \ >>>>>>>> $REPO/hotspot/test/serviceability/jvmti/GetOwnedMonitorInfo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Serguei >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/5/17 06:31, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Serguei, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I uploaded new webrev: >>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8185164/webrev.01/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I tried to run serviceability/jvmti/GetOwnedMonitorInfo but it is >>>>>>>>> failed because jtreg needs -nativepath option. >>>>>>>>> But I didn't know what path should I set to -nativepath. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yasumasa >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2017/08/05 20:20, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Yasumasa, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please, merge the converted testcase. >>>>>>>>>> It still might need more tweaks though. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Serguei >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/17 03:18, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Serguei, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much! >>>>>>>>>>> Should I merge your testcase? Or can you push this change? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I agree to your change as a reviewer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2017/08/05 11:34, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The updated patch attached. >>>>>>>>>>>> Now the test is passed with the suggested fix and failed without >>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Serguei >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/17 15:45, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/17 14:26, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/17 3:17 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The patch is attached. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may need some tweaks though. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was not able to make it fail yet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the original test had "failure" detection. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You were just supposed to notice that a pending monitor >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was listed under the wrong list. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing is listed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Strange thing is I do not see the monitor events fired. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm using 10 for testing. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Serguei >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/17 12:45, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Serguei! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I happen to be doing a test run this weekend that includes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JPDA stack of tests so I'll include the following in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiment: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $ hg log -v -r tip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changeset: 12872:bb66cd7c61b1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tag: 8185164.patch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tag: qtip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tag: tip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user: dcubed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> date: Fri Aug 04 13:41:29 2017 -0600 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files: src/share/vm/runtime/objectMonitor.cpp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imported patch 8185164.patch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That will get the product code changes a complete round of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Solaris X64 at least... :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Serguei >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/17 1:31 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for letting me know about this discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to convert the attached test case to the JTreg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Serguei >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/17 11:16, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adding Serguei to this thread directly since he's back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/17 10:14 PM, David Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dan, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/07/2017 11:52 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/17 12:11 AM, David Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/07/2017 10:27 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dan, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've added some analysis to the bug report >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to fix this issue in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JvmtiEnvBase::get_owned_monitors() at first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is difficult because we cannot know pending >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monitor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if thread state is MONITOR_CONTENDED_ENTER when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get_owned_monitor() is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I need to look closer at this when I get back from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next week. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems like you're back already. :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pending monitor should not be reported as owned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (unless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spec says otherwise) and it seems odd to me to fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by marking the monitor as pending earlier. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's the updating of the _current_pending_monitor field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows JvmtiEnvBase::get_locked_objects_in_frame() to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the monitor observed in the frame is only pending >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not owned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I put a fairly detailed note in the bug yesterday, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should look at that when you're officially back! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for clarifying things. I also added a comment to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bug report. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the fix is sound and prevents anyone from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case where the monitor will be seen in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stack-frame, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but has not yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been set as the "pending monitor". As far as I can tell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is only this case >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (GetOwnedMonitorInfo from the contended-monitor event >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callback in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current thread) that will be able to observe the change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One scenario that I worry about here is that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GetCurrentContendedMonitor() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call on a target thread will now be able to return a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-NULL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object, when GetThreadState() will be able to return >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked (on monitor enter) for the thread. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see anything in the JVM/TI spec that says such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong; I'm only worried about whether we have any tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would catch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this slight change in behavior. In any case, one of these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to "happen first": >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - thread is marked as blocked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - monitor is flagged as contended >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently, they happen in the above order and the fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the order and I see no reason not to do it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like the test attached to the bug to be converted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a native >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JTREG test that lives in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hotspot/test/serviceability/jvmti. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following test as a possible example: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hotspot/test/serviceability/jvmti/GetNamedModule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for how to do this... I haven't done one of these new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> native >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JTREG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests myself, but I believe Serguei has... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you run the jdk repo's com/sun/jdi tests with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have not done yet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a trip until 28 July JST. So I will run it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017/07/26 7:05, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/24/17 8:40 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to get owned monitors in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MonitorContendedEnter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JVMTI event handler. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However GetOwnedMonitorInfo JVMTI function returns a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monitor which is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not yet owned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I attached reproducer to JBS. Please read README.md. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think GetOwnedMonitorInfo() should not return a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending monitor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I uploaded webrev. Could you review? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8185164/webrev.00/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope this fix is applied to 8u or later release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot access JPRT. So I need a sponsor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the bug report. It's nice to have a test >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a proposed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix all in the bug report! I've added some analysis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bug report >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we'll need to run this fix through Oracle's JPDA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stack which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not (yet) open. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you run the jdk repo's com/sun/jdi tests with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yasumasa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
