8373643: Test serviceability/jvmti/vthread/ThreadListStackTracesTest/ThreadListStackTracesTest.java still failing by sspitsyn · Pull Request #29102 · openjdk/jdk

sspitsyn · 2026-01-08T01:07:45Z

The test is still failing after the fix of JDK-8371502. I suspect the issue is in the ReentrantLock implementation but suggest to make one more update of this test to make it more clear.
The test update includes the following changes:

update method ensureReadyAndWaiting():
- add sleep(50) at start of method
- replace call to rlock.hasQueuedThreads() with call to rlock.hasQueuedThread(vt)
update method checkStates() to make it more stable and tracing output more clear

Testing:

TBD: mach5 tiers 1-3

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-8373643: Test serviceability/jvmti/vthread/ThreadListStackTracesTest/ThreadListStackTracesTest.java still failing (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

Leonid Mesnik (@lmesnik - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/29102/head:pull/29102
$ git checkout pull/29102

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/29102
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/29102/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 29102

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 29102

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29102.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

…ThreadListStackTracesTest.java still failing

bridgekeeper · 2026-01-08T01:09:51Z

👋 Welcome back sspitsyn! 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 · 2026-01-08T01:10:42Z

@sspitsyn 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:

8373643: Test serviceability/jvmti/vthread/ThreadListStackTracesTest/ThreadListStackTracesTest.java still failing

Reviewed-by: lmesnik

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 40 new commits pushed to the master branch:

a726e83: 8373231: ECDSAOperations::toAffinePoint is redundant
74faf03: 8374819: jpackage and jpackage tests leave some I/O streams unclosed
805866b: 8372040: Remove Prefetch header vs inline header separation
... and 37 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/9a944e558733950d135b5a91d093b7a28e934f59...master

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 · 2026-01-08T01:11:55Z

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

serviceability

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.

mlbridge · 2026-01-08T03:44:51Z

Webrevs

01: Full - Incremental (3ff0d66e)
00: Full (3850f374)

lmesnik · 2026-01-08T04:20:59Z

.../jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/vthread/ThreadListStackTracesTest/ThreadListStackTracesTest.java

    }

    public void ensureReadyAndWaiting(Thread vt, Thread.State expState, ReentrantLock rlock) {
+        sleep(50); // reliability: wait for a potential ReentrantLock class loading to complete


It is not clear how ReentrantLock might be not loaded already. Can you please explain what do you mean?

There can be more than one class. E.g., some can be involved on contention.

I've update the comment an removed the word ReentrantLock to avoid possible confusions.

lmesnik · 2026-01-08T04:41:59Z

.../jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/vthread/ThreadListStackTracesTest/ThreadListStackTracesTest.java

+                          expState, state, jvmtiExpState, singleState, multiState);

-        if (vt.getState() != expState) {
+        if (state != expState) {


Assuming that there is no way to find if thread is completely locked, might be it makes a sense to just make a few attempts of checking status?
The test might sleep between attempts until got expected results. Even get them 3 times in a row.
So test fails only if we can't get to expected results during some reasonable time. So test would be more stable.
The only sleep between single check might be not enough in the case if VM/host is too busy.

I did not want to go this way. My current goal is to make it clear the instability source is not on JVMTI side.
Also, I think even 3 time checking approach will give some failures.

sspitsyn · 2026-01-10T00:59:04Z

This fix is a second correction of the test to make the output more clear. I wonder if it can be qualified as trivial.

lmesnik

Thanks for updating comment. The fix can be considered as trivial.

sspitsyn · 2026-01-10T08:21:41Z

Thank you for review, Leonid!

sspitsyn · 2026-01-10T11:08:46Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2026-01-10T11:10:08Z

Going to push as commit 12894a8.
Since your change was applied there have been 42 commits pushed to the master branch:

657d5f7: 8374754: jtreg failure handler - replace inline javascript and inline event handlers with same origin javascript files
0537a3f: 8374922: Build failure after JDK-8372040
a726e83: 8373231: ECDSAOperations::toAffinePoint is redundant
... and 39 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/9a944e558733950d135b5a91d093b7a28e934f59...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2026-01-10T11:10:17Z

@sspitsyn Pushed as commit 12894a8.

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

sspitsyn · 2026-01-13T23:31:32Z

/backport :jdk26

openjdk · 2026-01-13T23:32:38Z

@sspitsyn the backport was successfully created on the branch backport-sspitsyn-12894a87-jdk26 in my personal fork of openjdk/jdk. To create a pull request with this backport targeting openjdk/jdk:jdk26, just click the following link:

➡️ Create pull request

The title of the pull request is automatically filled in correctly and below you find a suggestion for the pull request body:

Hi all,

This pull request contains a backport of commit 12894a87 from the openjdk/jdk repository.

The commit being backported was authored by Serguei Spitsyn on 10 Jan 2026 and was reviewed by Leonid Mesnik.

Thanks!

If you need to update the source branch of the pull then run the following commands in a local clone of your personal fork of openjdk/jdk:

$ git fetch https://github.com/openjdk-bots/jdk.git backport-sspitsyn-12894a87-jdk26:backport-sspitsyn-12894a87-jdk26
$ git checkout backport-sspitsyn-12894a87-jdk26
# make changes
$ git add paths/to/changed/files
$ git commit --message 'Describe additional changes made'
$ git push https://github.com/openjdk-bots/jdk.git backport-sspitsyn-12894a87-jdk26

⚠️ @sspitsyn You are not yet a collaborator in my fork openjdk-bots/jdk. An invite will be sent out and you need to accept it before you can proceed.

8373643: Test serviceability/jvmti/vthread/ThreadListStackTracesTest/…

7b193fb

…ThreadListStackTracesTest.java still failing

openjdk bot added the serviceability serviceability-dev@openjdk.org label Jan 8, 2026

fixed whitespace error

3850f37

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jan 8, 2026

lmesnik suggested changes Jan 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

review: tweak one of the comments

3ff0d66

lmesnik approved these changes Jan 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Jan 10, 2026

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Jan 10, 2026

openjdk bot closed this Jan 10, 2026

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Jan 10, 2026

sspitsyn deleted the f10 branch January 14, 2026 00:43

Conversation

sspitsyn commented Jan 8, 2026 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jan 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jan 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Jan 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

lmesnik Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sspitsyn Jan 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sspitsyn Jan 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lmesnik Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sspitsyn Jan 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sspitsyn commented Jan 10, 2026

Uh oh!

lmesnik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sspitsyn commented Jan 10, 2026

Uh oh!

sspitsyn commented Jan 10, 2026

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jan 10, 2026

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jan 10, 2026

Uh oh!

sspitsyn commented Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

sspitsyn commented Jan 8, 2026 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

openjdk bot commented Jan 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Jan 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Jan 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading