Re: GC leaks debugging
Erik Groeneveld <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gcc.java.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:45, Andrew Haley <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/04/11 09:39, Erik Groeneveld wrote: >> L.S., >> >> I am debugging memory leaks in the GC of libgcj. Generally, libgcj >> performs well, but there are some cases in which the heap literally >> explodes over time. I wish to solve this. The OpenJDK vm runs the same >> tests without any leaking. >> >> I compiled GCC 4.6, build with --enable-libgcj-debug=yes and started >> testing with GC_DUMP_REGULARLY=1. From the results I have a few >> questions to understand it better. I am still in a phase of >> pinpointing a minimal program to demonstrate the problem, and I would >> like to get hints as to search further. >> >> 1. The finalization table entries keeps on increasing up to 39344 >> until it is killed, but the objects which are eligible for immediate >> finalization remains 0. It seems that no finalization takes place. >> Could you give any hints as to what could be the reason for this? It >> logs: >> >> ***Finalization statistics: >> 39344 finalization table entries; 48 disappearing links >> 0 objects are eligible for immediate finalization >> >> ***Static roots: >> From 0x804b284 to 0x804bf1c (temporary) >> From 0xb716d000 to 0xb7854cdc (temporary) >> From 0xb55ba92c to 0xb562ddbc (temporary) >> Total size: 7716356 >> >> >> 2. There is a fair amount of black-listing. From reading about the >> GC, I understand that the GC knows what is a pointer and what not >> because there is type information associated with the Java objects. >> So I'd expect no black-listing at all. It that a right observation? > > No. Objects are scanned precisely, but the stack is not. Thanks. I think I can rule the stack out by reviewing/adapting my test program. I'll do that first. > Also, depending > on your compilation options, the data segments of your program may be > scanned conservatively. I have to think about this one. Which options are you thinking of? Erik