On Thu, 9 May 2024 06:10:04 GMT, Chris Plummer <cjplum...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This PR adds ranked monitor support to the debug agent. The debug agent has 
>> a large number of monitors, and it's really hard to know which order to grab 
>> them in, and for that matter which monitors might already be held at any 
>> given moment. By imposing a rank on each monitor, we can check to make sure 
>> they are always grabbed in the order of their rank. Having this in place 
>> when I was working on 
>> [JDK-8324868](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8324868) would have made 
>> it much easier to detect a deadlock that was occuring, and the reason for 
>> it. That's what motivated me to do this work
>> 
>> There were 2 or 3 minor rank issues discovered as a result of these changes. 
>> I also learned a lot about some of the more ugly details of the locking 
>> support in the process.
>> 
>> Tested with the following on all supported platforms and with virtual 
>> threads:
>> 
>> com/sun/jdi
>> vmTestbase/nsk/jdi
>> vmTestbase/nsk/jdb
>> vmTestbase/nsk/jdwp 
>> 
>> Still need to run tier2 and tier5.
>> 
>> Details of the changes follow in the first comment.
>
> Chris Plummer has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Flip rank order. Some cleanup and better comments for verifyMonitorRank().

src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/util.c line 1145:

> 1143:  */
> 1144: 
> 1145: static jrawMonitorID dbgRawMonitor;

As the monitor is used to synchronize access to dbg_monitors array, maybe 
rename it to something like dbg_monitors_lock?

src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/util.c line 1276:

> 1274: 
> 1275: static void
> 1276: assertIsCurrentThread(JNIEnv *env, jthread thread, jthread 
> current_thread)

The function gets both threads as arguments, I think `assertIsSameThread` would 
be more correct name

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19044#discussion_r1605494862
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19044#discussion_r1605498977

Reply via email to