Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8317965: TestLoadLibraryDeadlock.java fails with "Unable to load native library.: expected true, was false" #16459

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

mlchung
Copy link
Member

@mlchung mlchung commented Nov 1, 2023

TestLoadLibraryDeadlock.java test runs LoadLibraryDeadlock and wait for 5 seconds and then grab the output. Then run jcmd to dump the thread stacks in case there is a deadlock. The test ignores and swallows any exception which makes it hard to diagnose test issues.

This PR simplifies the test to use jdk.test.lib.process.ProcessTools to launch LoadLibraryDeadlock test so that the output and error will be captured in the same way as other tools are run by this test. Also update the test to propagate exceptions where appropriate. This hopes to collect more information to diagnose the issue if this test fails next time.


Progress

  • Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

  • JDK-8317965: TestLoadLibraryDeadlock.java fails with "Unable to load native library.: expected true, was false" (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/16459/head:pull/16459
$ git checkout pull/16459

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/16459
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/16459/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 16459

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 16459

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16459.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Nov 1, 2023

👋 Welcome back mchung! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Nov 1, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 1, 2023

@mlchung The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

  • core-libs

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org label Nov 1, 2023
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Nov 1, 2023

Webrevs

Comment on lines 111 to 115
String java = JDKToolFinder.getJDKTool("java");
List<String> commands = new ArrayList<>();
Collections.addAll(commands, java);
Collections.addAll(commands, Utils.getTestJavaOpts());
Collections.addAll(commands, command);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The prose description talks about using ProcessTools, but the runCommand code doesn't use ProcessTools.createTestJavaProcessBuilder. It could save a few steps.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

runCommand sets the working directory whereas ProcessTools.createTestJavaProcessBuilder does not. Either way is okay with me if we want to use createTestJavaProcessBuilder (which will set the VM options).

+        ProcessBuilder pb = ProcessTools.createTestJavaProcessBuilder("-cp",
+                                                                      "a.jar" + classPathSeparator +
+                                                                      "b.jar" + classPathSeparator +
+                                                                      "c.jar",
+                                                                      "-Djava.library.path=" + testLibraryPath,
+                                                                      "LoadLibraryDeadlock")
+                                        .directory(new File(testClassPath));
+        OutputAnalyzer outputAnalyzer = ProcessTools.executeCommand(pb)
+                .shouldHaveExitValue(0);

or set the class path to the explicit path of the JAR files.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Updated to use createTestJavaProcessBuilder and more clean up.

Copy link
Contributor

@RogerRiggs RogerRiggs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 1, 2023

@mlchung This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8317965: TestLoadLibraryDeadlock.java fails with "Unable to load native library.: expected true, was false"

Reviewed-by: rriggs

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 1 new commit pushed to the master branch:

  • f262f06: 8319211: Regression in LoopOverNonConstantFP

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Nov 1, 2023
@mlchung
Copy link
Member Author

mlchung commented Nov 1, 2023

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 1, 2023

Going to push as commit 5207443.
Since your change was applied there have been 2 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • ee57e73: 8317612: ChoiceFormat and MessageFormat constructors call non-final public method
  • f262f06: 8319211: Regression in LoopOverNonConstantFP

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Nov 1, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Nov 1, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Nov 1, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 1, 2023

@mlchung Pushed as commit 5207443.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

@mlchung mlchung deleted the JDK-8317965 branch February 22, 2024 20:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org integrated Pull request has been integrated
2 participants