Hi Gary,

Who does the resume for the breakpoint event?

        eventHandler.addListener(
             new EventHandler.EventListener() {
                 public boolean eventReceived(Event event) {
                    if (event instanceof BreakpointEvent && bpRequest.equals(event.request())) {
                        synchronized(eventHandler) {
                            display("Received communication breakpoint event.");
                            bpCount++;
                            eventHandler.notifyAll();
                        }
                        return true;
                    }
                    return false;
                 }
             }
        );

Also:

  1. On a thread start event the debugee is suspended, line 141
That's not true for the first ThreadStartEvent since SUSPEND_NONE was used.

Chris

On 7/18/18 4:52 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the breakpoint in methodForCommunication.
The test uses it to make sure the threads are each tested separately.
The breakpoint eventhandler just displays a message, increments a counter
and returns.

Let me step through resume008 the debugee to help clarify ...

1. The test thread is created and the synchronized break point is observed. lines 101-102
2. The thread is started. lines 104,135-137
    2a. The main thread blocks on a local object. lines 133, 139
    2b. The test thread is started. lines 137,
           A run entered message is displayed, line 159
           The main thread lock object is notified, line 167
          2b1. The main thread continues. line 167, 146
                  The next test thread is created. line 106
                  The synchronized breakpoint is observed, line 107
          2b2. A run exited message is displayed, line 169

On the resume008 debugger side  ...
  1. On a thread start event the debugee is suspended, line 141
  2. Messages are displayed and a first set of thread suspend counts is acquired. lines 143-151
  3. The threads are resumed, line 152
--->
  4.  Messages are displayed and a second set of thread suspend counts is acquired. lines 154-159

The way the test is written the expectation is the debugger steps 2,3,4 will all happen
while the test thread is running.

When the debugger resumes the debuggee threads (debugger step 3)
the debuggee continues from where it left off (debuggee steps 2b,2b1,2b2)

If we complete debuggee step 2b1 (line 107) before the debugger completes step 4 line 159, then the synchronized breakpoint will suspend the vm and the counts will not match
for the SUSPEND_NONE test thread start.

resume008a.java:

   100                        case 0:
   101                                thread0 = new Threadresume008a("thread0");
   102                                methodForCommunication();
   103
   104                                threadStart(thread0);
   105
   106                                thread1 = new Threadresume008a("thread1");
   107                                methodForCommunication();
   108                                break;

   ...
   135        static int threadStart(Thread t) {
   136            synchronized (waitnotifyObj) {
   137                t.start();
   138                try {
   139                    waitnotifyObj.wait();
   140                } catch ( Exception e) {
   141                    exitCode = FAILED;
   142                    logErr("       Exception : " + e );
   143                    return FAILED;
   144                }
   145            }
   146            return PASSED;
   147        }

   149        static class Threadresume008a extends Thread {
   ...
   157
   158            public void run() {
   159                log1("  'run': enter  :: threadName == " + tName);

This is the proposed fix that will let the debugger complete it's second
acquisition of suspend counts while the test thread is still running.

   160                // Yield, so the start thread event processing can be completed.
   161                try {
   162                    Thread.sleep(100);
   163                } catch (InterruptedException e) {
   164                    // ignored
   165                }

   166                synchronized (waitnotifyObj) {
   167                        waitnotifyObj.notify();
   168                }
   169                log1("  'run': exit   :: threadName == " + tName);
   170                return;
   171            }
   172        }
   150
   151            String tName = null;
   152
   153            public Threadresume008a(String threadName) {
   154                super(threadName);
   155                tName = threadName;
   156            }
   157
   158            public void run() {
   159                log1("  'run': enter  :: threadName == " + tName);
   160                // Yield, so the start thread event processing can be completed.
   161                try {
   162                    Thread.sleep(100);
   163                } catch (InterruptedException e) {
   164                    // ignored
   165                }
   166                synchronized (waitnotifyObj) {
   167                        waitnotifyObj.notify();
   168                }
   169                log1("  'run': exit   :: threadName == " + tName);
   170                return;
   171            }
   172        }



On 7/18/18, 2:38 AM, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi Gary,

I've been having trouble following the control flow of this test. One thing I've stumbled across is the following:

            /* A debuggee class must define 'methodForCommunication'
             * method and invoke it in points of synchronization
             * with a debugger.
             */
setCommunicationBreakpoint(debuggeeClass,"methodForCommunication");

So why isn't this mode of synchronization good enough? Is it because it was not designed with the understanding that the debugger might be doing suspended thread counts, and suspending all threads at the breakpoint messes up the test?

From what I can tell of the test, after the debuggee is started and hits the default breakpoint at the start of main(), the debugger then does a vm.resume() at the start of the for loop in the runTest() method. The debuggee then creates a thread and calls methodForCommunication(). There is already a breakpoint set there by the above debuggee code. It's unclear to me what happens as a result of this breakpoint and how it serves the test. Also unclear to me who is responsible for the vm.resume() after the breakpoint is hit.

The debugger then requests all ThreadStart events, requesting that no threads be disabled when it is sent. I think you are saying that when the ThreadStart event comes in, sometimes we are at the methodForCommunication breakpoint, with all threads disabled, and this messes up the thread suspend counts. You want to delay 100ms so the breakpoint event can be processed and threads resumed again (although I can't see who actually resumes the thread after hitting the methodForCommunication breakpoint).

Chris

On 7/17/18 8:33 AM, Gary Adams wrote:
A race condition exists between the debugger and the debuggee.

The first test thread is started with SUSPEND_NONE policy set.
While processing the thread start event the debugger captures
an initial set of thread suspend counts and resumes the
debuggee vm. If the debuggee advances quickly it reaches
the breakpoint set for methodForCommunication. Since the breakpoint
carries with it SUSPEND_ALL policy, when the debugger captures a second
set of suspend counts, it will not match the expected counts for
a SUSPEND_NONE scenario.

The proposed fix introduces a yield in the debuggee test thread run method
to allow the debugger to get the expected sampled values.

  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170089
  Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gadams/8170089/webrev.00/


test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/share/jdi/TestDebuggerType1.java:
...
   186        private void setCommunicationBreakpoint(ReferenceType refType, String methodName) {    187            Method method = debuggee.methodByName(refType, methodName);
   188            Location location = null;
   189            try {
   190                location = method.allLineLocations().get(0);
   191            } catch (AbsentInformationException e) {
   192                throw new Failure(e);
   193            }
   194            bpRequest = debuggee.makeBreakpoint(location);
   195

   196 bpRequest.setSuspendPolicy(EventRequest.SUSPEND_ALL);

   197            bpRequest.putProperty("number", "zero");
   198            bpRequest.enable();
   199
   200            eventHandler.addListener(
   201                 new EventHandler.EventListener() {
   202                     public boolean eventReceived(Event event) {
   203                        if (event instanceof BreakpointEvent && bpRequest.equals(event.request())) {
   204                            synchronized(eventHandler) {
   205                                display("Received communication breakpoint event.");
   206                                bpCount++;
   207 eventHandler.notifyAll();
   208                            }
   209                            return true;
   210                        }
   211                        return false;
   212                     }
   213                 }
   214            );
   215        }


test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdi/EventSet/resume/resume008.java:
...
   140                    display("......--> vm.suspend();");
   141                    vm.suspend();
   142
   143                    display("        getting : Map<String, Integer> suspendsCounts1");
   144
   145                    Map<String, Integer> suspendsCounts1 = new HashMap<String, Integer>();    146                    for (ThreadReference threadReference : vm.allThreads()) {    147 suspendsCounts1.put(threadReference.name(), threadReference.suspendCount());
   148                    }
   149                    display(suspendsCounts1.toString());
   150
   151                    display("        eventSet.resume;");
   152                    eventSet.resume();
   153
   154                    display("        getting : Map<String, Integer> suspendsCounts2");

This is where the breakpoint is encountered before the second set of suspend counts is acquired.

   155                    Map<String, Integer> suspendsCounts2 = new HashMap<String, Integer>();    156                    for (ThreadReference threadReference : vm.allThreads()) {    157 suspendsCounts2.put(threadReference.name(), threadReference.suspendCount());
   158                    }
   159                    display(suspendsCounts2.toString());




Reply via email to