harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Elena Semukhina" <elena.semukh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm]kernel test
Date Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:21:43 GMT
The problem with ThreadTest has not been fixed yet. I'm running this test
iteratively now to see the sporadic failures. Indeed, testJoinlongint()
fails rather often. The spec for join() reads that it should wait at most
millis milliseconds for this thread to die. But the thread which is joining
in the test does not stop running. Can we allow join() to exit earlier in
this case?


On 11/28/06, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I may have missed it, it's  very possible, could someone point me to the
> fix
> or the thread ? My comments are based on what's in Harmony drlvm trunk as
> of
> a few hours ago.
>
> Thanks,
> Rana
>
>
> On 11/27/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > I thought this exact problem was identified and already fixed...
> >
> > geir
> >
> > Rana Dasgupta wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >   On Windows XP, java.lang.ThreadTest ( testJoinlongint component )
> > keeps
> > > failing for me sporadically. Debugging this, I saw that the problem
> was
> > > with
> > > the expiry interval on thread.join(millis, nanos ). Tests based on
> timed
> > > waits are somewhat unpredictable on most platforms.
> > >  In condvar_wait_impl(), we seem to set up the timeout interval in
> > > microseconds before calling apr_thread_cond_timeout(). On Windows,
> > > apr_thread_cond_timeout() implements using WaitForSingleObject( event,
> > > timeout )....but the Windows timeout is in milliseconds, as far as I
> > know.
> > > Is this not an error, or am I missing something? I did not want to
> > change
> > > anything since condvar_wait_impl() is on the code path of several
> timed
> > > waits.
> > >  Also, on a less important note, the tests testJoinLong() and
> > > testJoinLongint() seem to test to see that the thread.join(milli,
> nano)
> > > timeout is "at least" equal to the specified interval. My
> understanding
> > is
> > > that this should be "at most" the specified interval. Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rana
> > >
> >
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Elena

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message