8360312: Serviceability Agent tests fail with JFR enabled due to unknown thread type JfrRecorderThread

[plummercj]

Update SA to know about JfrRecorderThread, which was made a JavaThread in JDK 25 by JDK-8352251.

I'm also fixing ClhsdbJstackWithConcurrentLock, which was also failing with JFR enabled, but for a different reason (specified heap size was too small).

Testing (in progress):

• [x] tier1 ci
• [x] tier1 ci with -XX:StartFlightRecording
• [x] tier5 ci

---

Progress

• [x] Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• [x] Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• [x] Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8360312: Serviceability Agent tests fail with JFR enabled due to unknown thread type JfrRecorderThread (Bug - P3)

Reviewers

• David Holmes (@dholmes-ora - Reviewer) Review applies to 28a97a11
• Serguei Spitsyn (@sspitsyn - Reviewer)
• Kevin Walls (@kevinjwalls - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25960/head:pull/25960
$ git checkout pull/25960

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/25960
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25960/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 25960

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 25960

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25960.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper[bot]]

:wave: Welcome back cjplummer! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk[bot]]

@plummercj 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:

8360312: Serviceability Agent tests fail with JFR enabled due to unknown thread type JfrRecorderThread

Reviewed-by: sspitsyn, kevinw, dholmes

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 19 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 1ca008fd02496dc33e2707c102560cae1690fba5: 8360255: runtime/jni/checked/TestLargeUTF8Length.java fails with -XX:-CompactStrings
• cf75f1f9c6d2bc70c7133cb81c73a0ce0946dff9: 8358821: patch_verified_entry causes problems, use nmethod entry barriers instead
• 52526080bae4fb69172d8c87403510aa4d3c8942: 8225354: serviceability/jvmti/ModuleAwareAgents/ThreadStart failed with Didn't get ThreadStart events in VM early start phase!
• ... and 16 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/ba0c12231b0f5b680951e75765b5d292f31a2cbc...master

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.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[openjdk[bot]]

@plummercj The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• hotspot
• serviceability

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing lists. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge[bot]]

Webrevs

• 02: Full - Incremental (8de19276)
• 01: Full - Incremental (28a97a11)
• 00: Full (a679b236)

[plummercj]

Would a simple forward declaration of class JfrRecordThread in vmStructs.cpp avoid the need to move the class definition to the header file?

vmStructs does a sizeof(JfrRecordThread) so it needs the full class definition, not just a declaration.

[plummercj]

Thank you for the reviews Serguei, David, and Kevin!

/integrate

[openjdk[bot]]

Going to push as commit 712d866b72b43c839c57c3303dfb215f94c0db3b. Since your change was applied there have been 44 commits pushed to the master branch:

• da7080fffb2389465dc9afca6d02e9085fe15302: 8359761: JDK 25 RDP1 L10n resource files update
• 4edf791aecd432ecde00652acfaabddf136f4ca7: 8295851: Do not use ttyLock in BytecodeTracer::trace
• 12196baf6700d00c244747cfa22767e532a4a963: 8358624: ImmutableDescriptor violates equals/hashCode contract after deserialization
• ... and 41 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/ba0c12231b0f5b680951e75765b5d292f31a2cbc...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk[bot]]

@plummercj Pushed as commit 712d866b72b43c839c57c3303dfb215f94c0db3b.

:bulb: You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.