On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 11:25:34 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> The bug description seems like it is a fault in the JVM implementation - if 
>> that is the case, a core library bypass is unreliable, as such faults might 
>> happen to other classes and cause other consequences; and we might need to 
>> fix it from the VM runtime or compiler side, as the original report implies.
>
>> The bug description seems like it is a fault in the JVM implementation - if 
>> that is the case, a core library bypass is unreliable, as such faults might 
>> happen to other classes and cause other consequences; and we might need to 
>> fix it from the VM runtime or compiler side, as the original report implies.
> 
> It seems to about nested parking that can arise with the first use of 
> LockSupport.park from a class with a defining class loader that is not the 
> boot loader. The first usage, say an invokestatic to call the park method, 
> will call the loadClass on caller's defining class loader.  For the app class 
> loader, and many other custom class loaders, that are parallel capable, then 
> there will be a CHM to support the mapping of class names to locks. 
> Contention on the CHM seems to have lead to the nested park.  CHM and a lot 
> of other code has changed since and not clear that it will duplicate easily 
> now. Martin's ParkLoops test from the 2015 issue is in the test tree but it 
> might be that a variant of this that uses a custom class loader that 
> overrides getClassLoadingLock or parks in loadClass might be able to trigger 
> it. As a custom class loader's loadClass can do anything then it almost feels 
> like creating a class loader needs it have it recorded immediately as an 
> initiating class loader. Hop
 efully David will remember more of this when he gets back.

I'll second @AlanBateman 's sentiments here. I think a systemic issue needs a 
wholesale solution, otherwise it'll just lead to endless sprinkling of eager 
initializations.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24952#issuecomment-2862799361

Reply via email to