[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-serviceability-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR(M): JDK-8203321: Windows: assert(current_query_index < process_query_set->size) failed: inva
From:       coleen.phillimore () oracle ! com
Date:       2018-05-24 12:27:25
Message-ID: b6e0960c-281c-38b1-ec38-c29926f2d561 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi, Maybe this should go on serviceability-dev as well.
Thanks,
Coleen

On 5/22/18 3:24 PM, Markus Gronlund wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> Kindly asking for reviews for the following change:
> 
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203321
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mgronlun/8203321/webrev00/
> 
> Summary:
> 
> For some context about what this is about, please see this (now) relatively old \
> issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8019921 
> The porting work that brought this code from closed to open were optimistic in that \
> the following PDH query,  "\Process(java#n)\ID Process", performed relatively \
> stable on Windows 10. An invariant was added in that your ID Process query would \
> never return an index that was lower than the index at construction. 
> During testing, it was discovered that this invariant did not hold, especially when \
> running on Windows Server 2012 R2 and there is a high churn rate with many \
> processes with the same base name ("java#") starting and stopping (stressing PDH \
> list of processes). 
> We have to reinsert back the original code that handled the case where the PDH \
> process list is not stable (that were originally put in place with JDK-8019921). \
> The defensive logic is located at lines 418 - 422. 
> I had to rework some related code to make some room for this as well as to keep \
> track of the previous process index. 
> Thanks
> Markus


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]