-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.8k
8354522: Clones of DecimalFormat cause interferences when used concurrently #24598
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
👋 Welcome back j3graham! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@j3graham This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details. After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:
You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed. At the time when this comment was updated there had been 86 new commits pushed to the
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details. As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@justin-curtis-lu, @naotoj) but any other Committer may sponsor as well. ➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type |
Reproducing code example: public class DecimalFormatTest {
static AtomicInteger mismatchCount = new AtomicInteger(0);
public static void main(String[] args) {
DecimalFormat df = new DecimalFormat("#");
String str = df.format(Math.PI); // initial use of formatter
System.out.println(str);
try (var ex = Executors.newThreadPerTaskExecutor(Thread.ofPlatform().factory())) {
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++) {
// each thread gets its own clone of df
DecimalFormat threadDf = (DecimalFormat) df.clone();
ex.execute(makeTask(threadDf));
}
}
System.out.println("mismatchCount = " + mismatchCount);
}
private static Runnable makeTask(DecimalFormat threadDf) {
return () -> {
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
String dfString = threadDf.format(BigDecimal.valueOf(i));
String str = String.valueOf(i);
if (!str.equals(dfString)) {
System.err.println("mismatch: str = " + str + " dfString = " + dfString);
mismatchCount.incrementAndGet();
}
}
};
}
} |
Webrevs
|
Are you going to turn the reproducer into a test? I don't know if we have tests that for DecimalFormat cloning. |
I didn't notice any existing tests - I've added a version of the reproducer. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the fix, it looks good. Left some minor comments. I will run tiers 1-3 with your change.
@@ -725,6 +725,7 @@ public Object clone() { | |||
char[] newDigits = new char[digits.length]; | |||
System.arraycopy(digits, 0, newDigits, 0, digits.length); | |||
other.digits = newDigits; | |||
other.data = null; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We don't have to copy the data array unlike the digits array (above) because it can just be reset during the next getDataChars
call, but a comment as to why might be helpful.
// each thread gets its own clone of df | ||
DecimalFormat threadDf = (DecimalFormat) df.clone(); | ||
Runnable task = () -> { | ||
for (int j = 0; j < 1000000; j++) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should probably make this test less costly by decreasing some values, I don't the bug requires that many iterations to be exposed. (Without the fix and the break
statement in the test, mismatchCount
gets up into the tens of thousands on my machine.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For the original reproducer I wanted to be really sure that it failed. I've reduced it to be more reasonable. With the current config it still gets 10-100 mismatches for me. I've limited the number of lines that get logged as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If a mismatch is found, I think we can stop there and report error
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My thinking was that for a test pass, it would never hit the shortcut anyway, so it’s only an optimization for the failure case, which hopefully won’t happen anymore. Seeing the count of all collisions gives some reassurance that the test is still running for long enough to be effective.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a regression test. Detecting the regression and keeping doing the same test is unnecessary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I’ve updated the test to exit early.
/* | ||
* @test | ||
* @bug 8354522 | ||
* @summary Check for cloning interference |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It will probably be good to mention somewhere that this test/fix addresses the issue of the same data array reference being shared amongst DigitList clones.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added more detail to the comment with the test method.
public void testCloneIndependence() { | ||
AtomicInteger mismatchCount = new AtomicInteger(0); | ||
DecimalFormat df = new DecimalFormat("#"); | ||
String _ = df.format(Math.PI); // initial use of formatter |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should probably comment the importance of this line, as without it the test will pass without the fix. (It sets the data array to a non null value).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done
} | ||
String str = String.valueOf(value); | ||
if (!str.equals(dfString)) { | ||
mismatchCount.getAndIncrement(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
mismatchCount
is no longer needed. Simply break after printing the error message would suffice.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would still need something to indicate that it had failed, as well as a way to signal other threads that they should terminate early. Worth changing to an AtomicBoolean?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, ok then. Thanks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok to leave as is? Or is the AtomicBoolean more clear?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok to use it as a failure indicator (still I'd suggest breaking immediately after printing error)
String str = String.valueOf(value); | ||
if (!str.equals(dfString)) { | ||
mismatchCount.getAndIncrement(); | ||
System.err.println("mismatch: str = " + str + " dfString = " + dfString); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} catch (InterruptedException e) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd suggest throwing the exception (or RuntimeException with it as the cause), not swallowing it silently in the test.
I just wonder if we could do a white testing, ie, |
I've added a reflection-based test to see how it looks. We could go with either test, or both. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for adding the test. Let's keep them both.
static void setup() throws Exception { | ||
DIGIT_LIST_FIELD = DecimalFormat.class.getDeclaredField("digitList"); | ||
DIGIT_LIST_FIELD.setAccessible(true); | ||
|
||
DecimalFormat df = new DecimalFormat(); | ||
Object digitList = DIGIT_LIST_FIELD.get(df); | ||
|
||
DIGIT_LIST_CLASS = digitList.getClass(); | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd add some comment saying that this is a whitebox testing, so it might fail if the internal implementation changes (quite unlikely though). And if accessing digitList/data fails, it should throw jtreg.SkippedException
instead of a real exception in the actual @test methods.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the changes, the new test looks good to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me. Thanks for fixing this.
Thank you all for the reviews. |
/integrate |
/sponsor |
Going to push as commit 04c32fc08a67eaf6d3f47a0f9ea3d620b7ec6a07.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
The
DigitList
class used inDecimalFormat
does not reset thedata
array in its clone method. This can cause interference when clones are used concurrently.Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/24598/head:pull/24598
$ git checkout pull/24598
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/24598
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/24598/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 24598
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 24598
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24598.diff
Using Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment