-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.6k
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
8282200: ShouldNotReachHere() reached by AsyncGetCallTrace after JDK-8280422 #7559
Conversation
👋 Welcome back parttimenerd! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@parttimenerd The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:
When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing lists. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command. |
Webrevs
|
Related to #7193 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I marking this as changes requested because I need to investigate further. A shouldNotReachHere
should never be reached, if it can be reached then the circumstances need investigated to see where the true problem lies.
Thanks,
David
I'm willing to help... The described error is not dependent on the JVM being a debug build, I can also reproduce it with a release build by decreasing the sampling interval. |
Please see updates to JBS issue and the draft PR here: You can either take my changes, or hand over to me and I will use my PR. Thanks. |
To be frank, I would like to integrate your changes into my, because I need a second PR for JDK to be able to write such issues in JBS on my own. To the PR itself: The main difference between both is that with my PR we say "this should not happen please check before if you really want this" and with your PR we don't. I liked your initial PR that threw an error for the normal case that we cannot call this method for a thread in an inconsistent state. As you stated in the comment in the method of your PR, it is only a special case for AsyncGetCallTrace. What is the down side of having to explicitly check for this special case when you need it and otherwise throw an error? |
I don't like unnecessary special-cases. I added the Cheers. |
Good to know. I will change my PR accordingly (if this ok for you) :) |
Please do update. Thanks. |
I've updated it. Thanks again. |
9f701eb
to
ca295d3
Compare
I ran my original tests and found no crashes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi Johannes,
Your original changes need removing again.
Thanks,
David
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me (but I am biased :) )!
Thanks,
David
@parttimenerd 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:
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 37 new commits pushed to the
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. As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@dholmes-ora, @TheRealMDoerr, @kevinjwalls) but any other Committer may sponsor as well. ➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM.
/integrate |
@parttimenerd |
/sponsor |
Going to push as commit 231e48f.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
@TheRealMDoerr @parttimenerd Pushed as commit 231e48f. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
Fixes the mentioned bug by replacing the check in AsyncGetCallTrace using the newly introduced method
JavaThread::thread_from_jni_environment
.Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/7559/head:pull/7559
$ git checkout pull/7559
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/7559
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/7559/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 7559
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 7559
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7559.diff