Request for review: 8005618 - TEST_BUG: java/lang/ProcessBuilder/Basic.java failing intermittently (original) (raw)

Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Tue Jan 15 02:11:41 UTC 2013

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:31 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:

On 15/01/2013 7:12 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:

Simple enough fix but to be honest I'm not sure any value will always work for the dead process waitFor(). Our testing infrastructure seems to glide past whatever we consider to be acceptable tolerances. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8005618/webrev.01/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Erobm/8005618/webrev.01/> Using the latch seems reasonable but the existing wait/sleep times do not. Why waitFor(10000) if the main thread is going to interrupt you after a sleep(1000) ???

Actually, in this case it would be even safer to sleep longer, i.e. "impossibly" long, without any testing performance problem.

I am tempted to clean up a bunch of those other sleeps that actually do cause performance problems, as perhaps are you.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list