在android 9.0系統上如果多個進程使用WebView需要使用官方提供的api在子進程中給webview的數據文件夾設置后綴：

WebView.setDataDirectorySuffix(suffix);

否則將會報出以下錯誤：

Using WebView from more than one process at once with the same data directory is not supported. https://crbug.com/5583771 com.android.webview.chromium.WebViewChromiumAwInit.startChromiumLocked(WebViewChromiumAwInit.java:63)2 com.android.webview.chromium.WebViewChromiumAwInitForP.startChromiumLocked(WebViewChromiumAwInitForP.java:3)3 com.android.webview.chromium.WebViewChromiumAwInit$3.run(WebViewChromiumAwInit.java:3)4 android.os.Handler.handleCallback(Handler.java:873)5 android.os.Handler.dispatchMessage(Handler.java:99)6 android.os.Looper.loop(Looper.java:220)7 android.app.ActivityThread.main(ActivityThread.java:7437)8 java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Native Method)9 com.android.internal.os.RuntimeInit$MethodAndArgsCaller.run(RuntimeInit.java:500)10 com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(ZygoteInit.java:865)

通過使用官方提供的方法后問題只減少了一部分，從bugly后臺依然能收到此問題的大量崩潰信息，以至于都沖上了崩潰問題Top3。

從源碼分析調用鏈最終調用到了AwDataDirLock類中的lock方法。

public class WebViewChromiumAwInit { protected void startChromiumLocked() { ... AwBrowserProcess.start(); ... }}public final class AwBrowserProcess { public static void start() { ... AwDataDirLock.lock(appContext);}

AwDataDirLock.java

abstract class AwDataDirLock { private static final String TAG = 'AwDataDirLock'; private static final String EXCLUSIVE_LOCK_FILE = 'webview_data.lock'; // This results in a maximum wait time of 1.5s private static final int LOCK_RETRIES = 16; private static final int LOCK_SLEEP_MS = 100; private static RandomAccessFile sLockFile; private static FileLock sExclusiveFileLock; static void lock(final Context appContext) { try (ScopedSysTraceEvent e1 = ScopedSysTraceEvent.scoped('AwDataDirLock.lock'); StrictModeContext ignored = StrictModeContext.allowDiskWrites()) { if (sExclusiveFileLock != null) { // We have already called lock() and successfully acquired the lock in this process. // This shouldn’t happen, but is likely to be the result of an app catching an // exception thrown during initialization and discarding it, causing us to later // attempt to initialize WebView again. There’s no real advantage to failing the // locking code when this happens; we may as well count this as the lock being // acquired and let init continue (though the app may experience other problems // later). return; } // If we already called lock() but didn’t succeed in getting the lock, it’s possible the // app caught the exception and tried again later. As above, there’s no real advantage // to failing here, so only open the lock file if we didn’t already open it before. if (sLockFile == null) { String dataPath = PathUtils.getDataDirectory(); File lockFile = new File(dataPath, EXCLUSIVE_LOCK_FILE); try { // Note that the file is kept open intentionally. sLockFile = new RandomAccessFile(lockFile, 'rw'); } catch (IOException e) { // Failing to create the lock file is always fatal; even if multiple processes // are using the same data directory we should always be able to access the file // itself. throw new RuntimeException('Failed to create lock file ' + lockFile, e); } } // Android versions before 11 have edge cases where a new instance of an app process can // be started while an existing one is still in the process of being killed. This can // still happen on Android 11+ because the platform has a timeout for waiting, but it’s // much less likely. Retry the lock a few times to give the old process time to fully go // away. for (int attempts = 1; attempts <= LOCK_RETRIES; ++attempts) { try { sExclusiveFileLock = sLockFile.getChannel().tryLock(); } catch (IOException e) { // Older versions of Android incorrectly throw IOException when the flock() // call fails with EAGAIN, instead of returning null. Just ignore it. } if (sExclusiveFileLock != null) { // We got the lock; write out info for debugging. writeCurrentProcessInfo(sLockFile); return; } // If we’re not out of retries, sleep and try again. if (attempts == LOCK_RETRIES) break; try { Thread.sleep(LOCK_SLEEP_MS); } catch (InterruptedException e) { } } // We failed to get the lock even after retrying. // Many existing apps rely on this even though it’s known to be unsafe. // Make it fatal when on P for apps that target P or higher String error = getLockFailureReason(sLockFile); boolean dieOnFailure = Build.VERSION.SDK_INT >= Build.VERSION_CODES.P && appContext.getApplicationInfo().targetSdkVersion >= Build.VERSION_CODES.P; if (dieOnFailure) { throw new RuntimeException(error); } else { Log.w(TAG, error); } } } private static void writeCurrentProcessInfo(final RandomAccessFile file) { try { // Truncate the file first to get rid of old data. file.setLength(0); file.writeInt(Process.myPid()); file.writeUTF(ContextUtils.getProcessName()); } catch (IOException e) { // Don’t crash just because something failed here, as it’s only for debugging. Log.w(TAG, 'Failed to write info to lock file', e); } } private static String getLockFailureReason(final RandomAccessFile file) { final StringBuilder error = new StringBuilder('Using WebView from more than one process at ' + 'once with the same data directory is not supported. https://crbug.com/558377 ' + ': Current process '); error.append(ContextUtils.getProcessName()); error.append(' (pid ').append(Process.myPid()).append('), lock owner '); try { int pid = file.readInt(); String processName = file.readUTF(); error.append(processName).append(' (pid ').append(pid).append(')'); // Check the status of the pid holding the lock by sending it a null signal. // This doesn’t actually send a signal, just runs the kernel access checks. try { Os.kill(pid, 0); // No exception means the process exists and has the same uid as us, so is // probably an instance of the same app. Leave the message alone. } catch (ErrnoException e) { if (e.errno == OsConstants.ESRCH) { // pid did not exist - the lock should have been released by the kernel, // so this process info is probably wrong. error.append(' doesn’t exist!'); } else if (e.errno == OsConstants.EPERM) { // pid existed but didn’t have the same uid as us. // Most likely the pid has just been recycled for a new process error.append(' pid has been reused!'); } else { // EINVAL is the only other documented return value for kill(2) and should never // happen for signal 0, so just complain generally. error.append(' status unknown!'); } } } catch (IOException e) { // We’ll get IOException if we failed to read the pid and process name; e.g. if the // lockfile is from an old version of WebView or an IO error occurred somewhere. error.append(' unknown'); } return error.toString(); }}

lock方法會對webview數據目錄中的webview_data.lock文件在for循環中嘗試加鎖16次，注釋中也說明了這么做的原因：可能出現的極端情況是一個舊進程正在被殺死時一個新的進程啟動了，看來Google工程師對這個問題也很頭痛；如果加鎖成功會將該進程id和進程名寫入到文件，如果加鎖失敗則會拋出異常。所以在android9.0以上檢測應用是否存在多進程共用WebView數據目錄的原理就是進程持有WebView數據目錄中的webview_data.lock文件的鎖。所以如果子進程也對相同文件嘗試加鎖則會導致應用崩潰。

目前大部分手機會在應用崩潰時自動重啟應用，猜測當手機系統運行較慢時這時就會出現注釋中提到的當一個舊進程正在被殺死時一個新的進程啟動了的情況。既然獲取文件鎖失敗就會發生崩潰，并且該文件只是用于加鎖判斷是否存在多進程共用WebView數據目錄，每次加鎖成功都會重新寫入對應進程信息，那么我們可以在應用啟動時對該文件嘗試加鎖，如果加鎖失敗就刪除該文件并重新創建，加鎖成功就立即釋放鎖，這樣當系統嘗試加鎖時理論上是可以加鎖成功的，也就避免了這個問題的發生。

private static void handleWebviewDir(Context context) { if (Build.VERSION.SDK_INT < Build.VERSION_CODES.P) { return; } try { String suffix = ''; String processName = getProcessName(context); if (!TextUtils.equals(context.getPackageName(), processName)) {//判斷不等于默認進程名稱 suffix = TextUtils.isEmpty(processName) ? context.getPackageName() : processName; WebView.setDataDirectorySuffix(suffix); suffix = '_' + suffix; } tryLockOrRecreateFile(context,suffix); } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } @TargetApi(Build.VERSION_CODES.P) private static void tryLockOrRecreateFile(Context context,String suffix) { String sb = context.getDataDir().getAbsolutePath() + '/app_webview'+suffix+'/webview_data.lock'; File file = new File(sb); if (file.exists()) { try { FileLock tryLock = new RandomAccessFile(file, 'rw').getChannel().tryLock(); if (tryLock != null) { tryLock.close(); } else { createFile(file, file.delete()); } } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); boolean deleted = false; if (file.exists()) { deleted = file.delete(); } createFile(file, deleted); } } } private static void createFile(File file, boolean deleted){ try { if (deleted && !file.exists()) { file.createNewFile(); } } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); } }

使用此方案應用上線后該問題崩潰次數減少了90%以上。也許Google工程師應該考慮下換一種技術方案檢測應用是否存在多進程共用WebView數據目錄。

以上就是Android 解決WebView多進程崩潰的方法的詳細內容，更多關于Android 解決WebView多進程崩潰的資料請關注好吧啦網其它相關文章！