On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 22:08:27 GMT, Leonid Mesnik <lmes...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This assert happens rarely, but is seen in testing a few times. >> >> getCurrentQueryIndexForProcess comments that it can return -1, but it >> asserts that the value is >=0 >> >> If we let it return -1 for failure as its comment documents, the caller can >> handle the failure and not assert and end the JVM. >> >> Conversely, currentQueryIndexForProcess() clearly can return -1 on failure, >> so add the comment like we already have in getCurrentQueryIndexForProcess(). >> >> This assert is not reproducing on demand, but with this change I've done 50+ >> iterations of the test on windows-x64 and windows-x64-debug in mach5, and >> hundreds locally. >> >> The test which has been seen to trigger the assert >> "test/jdk/com/sun/management/OperatingSystemMXBean/GetProcessCpuLoad.java" >> ...checks the range of the load value returned, and is happy enough if -1 is >> the answer. > > src/jdk.management/windows/native/libmanagement_ext/OperatingSystemImpl.c > line 780: > >> 778: int currentQueryIndex = currentQueryIndexForProcess(); >> 779: >> 780: assert(currentQueryIndex < numberOfJavaProcessesAtInitialization); > > doesn't it make sense to change assert to currentQueryIndex >= -1, so any > other negative numbers are still hit assertion? Thanks Leonid, I didn't see much value in that - we can see in the same file the return value of currentQueryIndexForProcess() is going to be -1 or an index from the for loop iteration from 0 to INT_MAX. We can do that if you really feel it has a benefit? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15750#discussion_r1336871050
