Hi David,
On 8/5/18 5:33 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Chris,
On 4/08/2018 4:23 AM, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hello,
Please review the following fix for JDK12:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cjplummer/8199811/webrev.00
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199811
The root of the problem is that there is no code in the solaris or
windows AttachListener support that ensures that the listener is done
being initialized before attaching and attempting to enqueue the
first command. The enqueue operation fails when is sees that the
listener is not attached yet.
I was able to force this failure to happen every time by adding a 10
second sleep in attach_listener_thread_entry() just before the call
to AttachListener::set_initialized(). This did not cause macosx or
linux to fail, but did make solaris fail (failures had not been noted
previously) and windows to fail (failures previously had been
observed, but very rarely).
I'm having trouble seeing the complete code paths here to understand
the control flow for initialization and subsequent use. How do we get
to the enqueue logic (that fails) if the initialization logic has not
yet completed? Is the init logic asynchronous? (If so I would expect
many more failures of this nature.)
It's seems to be very convoluted on Windows, and somewhat on Solaris
too. Took me a while to figure it out enough to fix this issue. Yes, it
appears the init logic is async w.r.t. the enqueue logic. On Windows the
init logic is always triggered during VM startup. I had previously
inserted some pns2() calls to see how it gets initialized. Here's what
it produced:
V [jvm.dll+0x30b7fd] AttachListener::init+0x2dd (attachlistener.cpp:466)
V [jvm.dll+0xd59513] Threads::create_vm+0x873 (thread.cpp:3817)
V [jvm.dll+0x862e71] JNI_CreateJavaVM_inner+0xd1 (jni.cpp:3945)
V [jvm.dll+0x8667af] JNI_CreateJavaVM+0x1f (jni.cpp:4036)
C [java.exe+0x36df]
C [java.exe+0x19fcc]
C [KERNEL32.DLL+0x13d2]
C [ntdll.dll+0x154f4]
V [jvm.dll+0x30c473] AttachListener::pd_init+0x23
(attachlistener_windows.cpp:394)
V [jvm.dll+0x30a6fc] attach_listener_thread_entry+0x17c
(attachlistener.cpp:352)
V [jvm.dll+0xd622ac] JavaThread::run+0x3ec (thread.cpp:1732)
V [jvm.dll+0xba191e] thread_native_entry+0x11e (os_windows.cpp:456)
C [ucrtbase.DLL+0x1d885]
C [KERNEL32.DLL+0x13d2]
C [ntdll.dll+0x154f4]
So AttachListener::init() starts a new thread with
attach_listener_thread_entry() as the entrypoint. That's also the method
that eventually calls AttachListener::set_initialized(), and also where
I stuck the 10 second delay before the call to
AttachListener::set_initialized() to make it fail every time on Windows
and Solaris. AttachListener::init() only starts the listener thread. It
does not wait for it to become initialized.
The enqeue() is done in a very strange way on Windows that I don't fully
understand. I could never get a native stack trace since it's done from
a thread that is not attached to the JVM. From the attaching side you
get the following exception when the enqueue() fails:
java.lang.InternalError: Remote thread failed for unknown reason (100)
at jdk.attach/sun.tools.attach.VirtualMachineImpl.enqueue(Native
Method)
at
jdk.attach/sun.tools.attach.VirtualMachineImpl.execute(VirtualMachineImpl.java:106)
at
jdk.attach/sun.tools.attach.HotSpotVirtualMachine.executeCommand(HotSpotVirtualMachine.java:309)
at
jdk.attach/sun.tools.attach.HotSpotVirtualMachine.getAgentProperties(HotSpotVirtualMachine.java:202)
at
jdk.jdi/com.sun.tools.jdi.ProcessAttachingConnector.attach(ProcessAttachingConnector.java:103)
at ProcessAttachTest.tryDebug(ProcessAttachTest.java:107)
at ProcessAttachTest.runTest(ProcessAttachTest.java:87)
at ProcessAttachTest.main(ProcessAttachTest.java:66)
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:566)
at
com.sun.javatest.regtest.agent.MainActionHelper$SameVMRunnable.run(MainActionHelper.java:229)
at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:834)
If you look at the windows
Java_sun_tools_attach_VirtualMachineImpl_enqueue() method, you'll see
how it creates a process in the target VM, and has it execute
JVM_EnqueueOperation(), which calls Win32AttachListener::enqueue(),
which is where the return code of 100 (ATTACH_ERROR_DISABLED) is
produced, and also where I put my sleep code to give initialization a
chance to complete.
The proposed fix is to have the enqueue code sleep for up to 20
seconds (in 1 second intervals) waiting for initialization to be
complete. I found this fixed the problem, even with the 10 second
sleep in attach_listener_thread_entry() still in place. A shorter
sleep is probably fine. I'm open to suggestions. Since this timing
issue was so rare, my guess is that a single 1 second sleep is likely
to always fix it, but since it is so hard to reproduce (without the
10 second sleep in place), I can't say for sure.
That seems reasonable.
Not sure what the interruption issue is that you and Gary discussed.
The os-level sleep function can only be interrupted by signals, and
this thread shouldn't be receiving any signals in general.So it's not
something I would be concerned about.
Ok.
Another approach to fixing this would be to use some sort of
synchronization between the init and enqueue code, like a condition
variable. I think I know how to do this with pthread_cond_wait() and
pthread_cond_signal(), although it gets to be a bit tricky since I'd
probably have to make the enqueue code create the condvar if
initialization is not yet complete, and then have the initialization
code check for the existence of the condvar when initialization is
complete, and signal on it if it exists. I'm pretty sure there's a
potential for race condition in there. I haven't thought it through
enough to say for sure. I also looked a bit at condition variable
support on windows, and it looks like I could do something similar
there too. However, I think the sleep approach I have implement is
far more straight forward and less error prone, so I'd prefer to
stick with it if others approve.
Can't comment on this without understanding exactly where the race is.
Ok. Let me know if you need any more details.
thanks,
Chris
Thanks,
David
thanks,
Chris
