8293562: KeepAliveCache Blocks Threads while Closing Connections

[alograg]

8299602: blocked threads with KeepAliveCache.

I followed the steps that helped me carry out this pull-request.

REF/: https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2023-February/020439.html

Thanks to @GoeLin and @jerboaa

---

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-8293562: KeepAliveCache Blocks Threads while Closing Connections

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev.git pull/1825/head:pull/1825
$ git checkout pull/1825

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/1825
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev.git pull/1825/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 1825

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 1825

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev/pull/1825.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

Hi @alograg, welcome to this OpenJDK project and thanks for contributing!

We do not recognize you as Contributor and need to ensure you have signed the Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA). If you have not signed the OCA, please follow the instructions. Please fill in your GitHub username in the "Username" field of the application. Once you have signed the OCA, please let us know by writing /signed in a comment in this pull request.

If you already are an OpenJDK Author, Committer or Reviewer, please click here to open a new issue so that we can record that fact. Please use "Add GitHub user alograg" as summary for the issue.

If you are contributing this work on behalf of your employer and your employer has signed the OCA, please let us know by writing /covered in a comment in this pull request.

[openjdk]

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

[alograg]

/covered

[bridgekeeper]

Thank you! Please allow for a few business days to verify that your employer has signed the OCA. Also, please note that pull requests that are pending an OCA check will not usually be evaluated, so your patience is appreciated!

[theRealAph]

I just looked at https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10401/files , and I see that it does not change white space in otherwise unchanged files. Please remove all white space-only changes from this patch. It'll make this patch easier to review.

[alograg]

I just looked at https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10401/files , and I see that it does not change white space in otherwise unchanged files. Please remove all white space-only changes from this patch. It'll make this patch easier to review.

Thanks, this was done automatically by my IDE, sorry.

[robilad]

Hi, please send an e-mail to Dalibor.Topic@oracle.com so that I can mark your account as verified.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (81da9472)

[jerboaa]

This patch is pretty hard to review since it includes many unrelated changes. Please try to only make necessary adaptations and explain why those changes needed to be made.

Perhaps it makes more sense to start over by applying the JDK 17u patch and adjusting it until it works and you're confident the patch does what it's supposed to do. It's important to configure your editor in a way to not modify code that isn't being touched by the patch. Unrelated formatting changes are not OK in a backport.

While the JDK 17u patch builds on https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8229867, this backport should not include those changes. It should use the old synchronization scheme instead.

[bridgekeeper]

@alograg This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

[alograg]

This patch is pretty hard to review since it includes many unrelated changes. Please try to only make necessary adaptations and explain why those changes needed to be made.

Perhaps it makes more sense to start over by applying the JDK 17u patch and adjusting it until it works and you're confident the patch does what it's supposed to do. It's important to configure your editor in a way to not modify code that isn't being touched by the patch. Unrelated formatting changes are not OK in a backport.

While the JDK 17u patch builds on https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8229867, this backport should not include those changes. It should use the old synchronization scheme instead.

Hi @jerboaa

Where do I find the documentation for "the old synchronization scheme" ?

I am trying to make the requested changes but I would like to see how it is done to see if it is better than the manual change.

Thanks

[jerboaa]

This patch is pretty hard to review since it includes many unrelated changes. Please try to only make necessary adaptations and explain why those changes needed to be made.
Perhaps it makes more sense to start over by applying the JDK 17u patch and adjusting it until it works and you're confident the patch does what it's supposed to do. It's important to configure your editor in a way to not modify code that isn't being touched by the patch. Unrelated formatting changes are not OK in a backport.
While the JDK 17u patch builds on https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8229867, this backport should not include those changes. It should use the old synchronization scheme instead.

Hi @jerboaa

Where do I find the documentation for "the old synchronization scheme" ?

Look at openjdk/jdk@65393a09 the change done as part of https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8229867. In essence it's changing synchronized methods to use java.util.concurrent.locks API instead.

I am trying to make the requested changes but I would like to see how it is done to see if it is better than the manual change.

Someone else has done another backport of this change. See #1890 perhaps coordinate with that contributor?

[alograg]

I think the #1890 code of @PoojaDP-23 is more faithful to the original correction code.
Thank very much for ton review @jerboaa