Develop Reference

Removing array from memory in Java [duplicate]

Is there a way to free memory in Java, similar to C's free() function? Or is setting the object to null and relying on GC the only option?

Java uses managed memory, so the only way you can allocate memory is by using the new operator, and the only way you can deallocate memory is by relying on the garbage collector.
This memory management whitepaper (PDF) may help explain what's going on.
You can also call System.gc() to suggest that the garbage collector run immediately. However, the Java Runtime makes the final decision, not your code.
According to the Java documentation,
Calling the gc method suggests that
the Java Virtual Machine expend effort
toward recycling unused objects in
order to make the memory they
currently occupy available for quick
reuse. When control returns from the
method call, the Java Virtual Machine
has made a best effort to reclaim
space from all discarded objects.

No one seems to have mentioned explicitly setting object references to null, which is a legitimate technique to "freeing" memory you may want to consider.
For example, say you'd declared a List<String> at the beginning of a method which grew in size to be very large, but was only required until half-way through the method. You could at this point set the List reference to null to allow the garbage collector to potentially reclaim this object before the method completes (and the reference falls out of scope anyway).
Note that I rarely use this technique in reality but it's worth considering when dealing with very large data structures.

System.gc();
Runs the garbage collector.
Calling the gc method suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort to reclaim space from all discarded objects.
Not recommended.
Edit: I wrote the original response in 2009. It's now 2015.
Garbage collectors have gotten steadily better in the ~20 years Java's been around. At this point, if you're manually calling the garbage collector, you may want to consider other approaches:
If you're forcing GC on a limited number of machines, it may be worth having a load balancer point away from the current machine, waiting for it to finish serving to connected clients, timeout after some period for hanging connections, and then just hard-restart the JVM. This is a terrible solution, but if you're looking at System.gc(), forced-restarts may be a possible stopgap.
Consider using a different garbage collector. For example, the (new in the last six years) G1 collector is a low-pause model; it uses more CPU overall, but does it's best to never force a hard-stop on execution. Since server CPUs now almost all have multiple cores, this is A Really Good Tradeoff to have available.
Look at your flags tuning memory use. Especially in newer versions of Java, if you don't have that many long-term running objects, consider bumping up the size of newgen in the heap. newgen (young) is where new objects are allocated. For a webserver, everything created for a request is put here, and if this space is too small, Java will spend extra time upgrading the objects to longer-lived memory, where they're more expensive to kill. (If newgen is slightly too small, you're going to pay for it.) For example, in G1:
XX:G1NewSizePercent (defaults to 5; probably doesn't matter.)
XX:G1MaxNewSizePercent (defaults to 60; probably raise this.)
Consider telling the garbage collector you're not okay with a longer pause. This will cause more-frequent GC runs, to allow the system to keep the rest of it's constraints. In G1:
XX:MaxGCPauseMillis (defaults to 200.)

*"I personally rely on nulling variables as a placeholder for future proper deletion. For example, I take the time to nullify all elements of an array before actually deleting (making null) the array itself."
This is unnecessary. The way the Java GC works is it finds objects that have no reference to them, so if I have an Object x with a reference (=variable) a that points to it, the GC won't delete it, because there is a reference to that object:
a -> x
If you null a than this happens:
a -> null
x
So now x doesn't have a reference pointing to it and will be deleted. The same thing happens when you set a to reference to a different object than x.
So if you have an array arr that references to objects x, y and z and a variable a that references to the array it looks like that:
a -> arr -> x
-> y
-> z
If you null a than this happens:
a -> null
arr -> x
-> y
-> z
So the GC finds arr as having no reference set to it and deletes it, which gives you this structure:
a -> null
x
y
z
Now the GC finds x, y and z and deletes them aswell. Nulling each reference in the array won't make anything better, it will just use up CPU time and space in the code (that said, it won't hurt further than that. The GC will still be able to perform the way it should).

To extend upon the answer and comment by Yiannis Xanthopoulos and Hot Licks (sorry, I cannot comment yet!), you can set VM options like this example:
-XX:+UseG1GC -XX:MinHeapFreeRatio=15 -XX:MaxHeapFreeRatio=30
In my jdk 7 this will then release unused VM memory if more than 30% of the heap becomes free after GC when the VM is idle. You will probably need to tune these parameters.
While I didn't see it emphasized in the link below, note that some garbage collectors may not obey these parameters and by default java may pick one of these for you, should you happen to have more than one core (hence the UseG1GC argument above).
VM arguments
Update: For java 1.8.0_73 I have seen the JVM occasionally release small amounts with the default settings. Appears to only do it if ~70% of the heap is unused though.. don't know if it would be more aggressive releasing if the OS was low on physical memory.

A valid reason for wanting to free memory from any programm (java or not ) is to make more memory available to other programms on operating system level. If my java application is using 250MB I may want to force it down to 1MB and make the 249MB available to other apps.

I have done experimentation on this.
It's true that System.gc(); only suggests to run the Garbage Collector.
But calling System.gc(); after setting all references to null, will improve performance and memory occupation.

If you really want to allocate and free a block of memory you can do this with direct ByteBuffers. There is even a non-portable way to free the memory.
However, as has been suggested, just because you have to free memory in C, doesn't mean it a good idea to have to do this.
If you feel you really have a good use case for free(), please include it in the question so we can see what you are rtying to do, it is quite likely there is a better way.

Entirely from javacoffeebreak.com/faq/faq0012.html
A low priority thread takes care of garbage collection automatically
for the user. During idle time, the thread may be called upon, and it
can begin to free memory previously allocated to an object in Java.
But don't worry - it won't delete your objects on you!
When there are no references to an object, it becomes fair game for
the garbage collector. Rather than calling some routine (like free in
C++), you simply assign all references to the object to null, or
assign a new class to the reference.
Example :
public static void main(String args[])
{
// Instantiate a large memory using class
MyLargeMemoryUsingClass myClass = new MyLargeMemoryUsingClass(8192);
// Do some work
for ( .............. )
{
// Do some processing on myClass
}
// Clear reference to myClass
myClass = null;
// Continue processing, safe in the knowledge
// that the garbage collector will reclaim myClass
}
If your code is about to request a large amount of memory, you may
want to request the garbage collector begin reclaiming space, rather
than allowing it to do so as a low-priority thread. To do this, add
the following to your code
System.gc();
The garbage collector will attempt to reclaim free space, and your
application can continue executing, with as much memory reclaimed as
possible (memory fragmentation issues may apply on certain platforms).

In my case, since my Java code is meant to be ported to other languages in the near future (Mainly C++), I at least want to pay lip service to freeing memory properly so it helps the porting process later on.
I personally rely on nulling variables as a placeholder for future proper deletion. For example, I take the time to nullify all elements of an array before actually deleting (making null) the array itself.
But my case is very particular, and I know I'm taking performance hits when doing this.

* "For example, say you'd declared a List at the beginning of a
method which grew in size to be very large, but was only required
until half-way through the method. You could at this point set the
List reference to null to allow the garbage collector to potentially
reclaim this object before the method completes (and the reference
falls out of scope anyway)." *
This is correct, but this solution may not be generalizable. While setting a List object reference to null -will- make memory available for garbage collection, this is only true for a List object of primitive types. If the List object instead contains reference types, setting the List object = null will not dereference -any- of the reference types contained -in- the list. In this case, setting the List object = null will orphan the contained reference types whose objects will not be available for garbage collection unless the garbage collection algorithm is smart enough to determine that the objects have been orphaned.

Althrough java provides automatic garbage collection sometimes you will want to know how large the object is and how much of it is left .Free memory using programatically import java.lang; and Runtime r=Runtime.getRuntime(); to obtain values of memory using mem1=r.freeMemory(); to free memory call the r.gc(); method and the call freeMemory()

Recommendation from JAVA is to assign to null
From https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19159-01/819-3681/abebi/index.html
Explicitly assigning a null value to variables that are no longer needed helps the garbage collector to identify the parts of memory that can be safely reclaimed. Although Java provides memory management, it does not prevent memory leaks or using excessive amounts of memory.
An application may induce memory leaks by not releasing object references. Doing so prevents the Java garbage collector from reclaiming those objects, and results in increasing amounts of memory being used. Explicitly nullifying references to variables after their use allows the garbage collector to reclaim memory.
One way to detect memory leaks is to employ profiling tools and take memory snapshots after each transaction. A leak-free application in steady state will show a steady active heap memory after garbage collections.

Manage memory in java [duplicate]

Is there a way to free memory in Java, similar to C's free() function? Or is setting the object to null and relying on GC the only option?

Java uses managed memory, so the only way you can allocate memory is by using the new operator, and the only way you can deallocate memory is by relying on the garbage collector.
This memory management whitepaper (PDF) may help explain what's going on.
You can also call System.gc() to suggest that the garbage collector run immediately. However, the Java Runtime makes the final decision, not your code.
According to the Java documentation,
Calling the gc method suggests that
the Java Virtual Machine expend effort
toward recycling unused objects in
order to make the memory they
currently occupy available for quick
reuse. When control returns from the
method call, the Java Virtual Machine
has made a best effort to reclaim
space from all discarded objects.

No one seems to have mentioned explicitly setting object references to null, which is a legitimate technique to "freeing" memory you may want to consider.
For example, say you'd declared a List<String> at the beginning of a method which grew in size to be very large, but was only required until half-way through the method. You could at this point set the List reference to null to allow the garbage collector to potentially reclaim this object before the method completes (and the reference falls out of scope anyway).
Note that I rarely use this technique in reality but it's worth considering when dealing with very large data structures.

System.gc();
Runs the garbage collector.
Calling the gc method suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort to reclaim space from all discarded objects.
Not recommended.
Edit: I wrote the original response in 2009. It's now 2015.
Garbage collectors have gotten steadily better in the ~20 years Java's been around. At this point, if you're manually calling the garbage collector, you may want to consider other approaches:
If you're forcing GC on a limited number of machines, it may be worth having a load balancer point away from the current machine, waiting for it to finish serving to connected clients, timeout after some period for hanging connections, and then just hard-restart the JVM. This is a terrible solution, but if you're looking at System.gc(), forced-restarts may be a possible stopgap.
Consider using a different garbage collector. For example, the (new in the last six years) G1 collector is a low-pause model; it uses more CPU overall, but does it's best to never force a hard-stop on execution. Since server CPUs now almost all have multiple cores, this is A Really Good Tradeoff to have available.
Look at your flags tuning memory use. Especially in newer versions of Java, if you don't have that many long-term running objects, consider bumping up the size of newgen in the heap. newgen (young) is where new objects are allocated. For a webserver, everything created for a request is put here, and if this space is too small, Java will spend extra time upgrading the objects to longer-lived memory, where they're more expensive to kill. (If newgen is slightly too small, you're going to pay for it.) For example, in G1:
XX:G1NewSizePercent (defaults to 5; probably doesn't matter.)
XX:G1MaxNewSizePercent (defaults to 60; probably raise this.)
Consider telling the garbage collector you're not okay with a longer pause. This will cause more-frequent GC runs, to allow the system to keep the rest of it's constraints. In G1:
XX:MaxGCPauseMillis (defaults to 200.)

*"I personally rely on nulling variables as a placeholder for future proper deletion. For example, I take the time to nullify all elements of an array before actually deleting (making null) the array itself."
This is unnecessary. The way the Java GC works is it finds objects that have no reference to them, so if I have an Object x with a reference (=variable) a that points to it, the GC won't delete it, because there is a reference to that object:
a -> x
If you null a than this happens:
a -> null
x
So now x doesn't have a reference pointing to it and will be deleted. The same thing happens when you set a to reference to a different object than x.
So if you have an array arr that references to objects x, y and z and a variable a that references to the array it looks like that:
a -> arr -> x
-> y
-> z
If you null a than this happens:
a -> null
arr -> x
-> y
-> z
So the GC finds arr as having no reference set to it and deletes it, which gives you this structure:
a -> null
x
y
z
Now the GC finds x, y and z and deletes them aswell. Nulling each reference in the array won't make anything better, it will just use up CPU time and space in the code (that said, it won't hurt further than that. The GC will still be able to perform the way it should).

To extend upon the answer and comment by Yiannis Xanthopoulos and Hot Licks (sorry, I cannot comment yet!), you can set VM options like this example:
-XX:+UseG1GC -XX:MinHeapFreeRatio=15 -XX:MaxHeapFreeRatio=30
In my jdk 7 this will then release unused VM memory if more than 30% of the heap becomes free after GC when the VM is idle. You will probably need to tune these parameters.
While I didn't see it emphasized in the link below, note that some garbage collectors may not obey these parameters and by default java may pick one of these for you, should you happen to have more than one core (hence the UseG1GC argument above).
VM arguments
Update: For java 1.8.0_73 I have seen the JVM occasionally release small amounts with the default settings. Appears to only do it if ~70% of the heap is unused though.. don't know if it would be more aggressive releasing if the OS was low on physical memory.

A valid reason for wanting to free memory from any programm (java or not ) is to make more memory available to other programms on operating system level. If my java application is using 250MB I may want to force it down to 1MB and make the 249MB available to other apps.

I have done experimentation on this.
It's true that System.gc(); only suggests to run the Garbage Collector.
But calling System.gc(); after setting all references to null, will improve performance and memory occupation.

If you really want to allocate and free a block of memory you can do this with direct ByteBuffers. There is even a non-portable way to free the memory.
However, as has been suggested, just because you have to free memory in C, doesn't mean it a good idea to have to do this.
If you feel you really have a good use case for free(), please include it in the question so we can see what you are rtying to do, it is quite likely there is a better way.

Entirely from javacoffeebreak.com/faq/faq0012.html
A low priority thread takes care of garbage collection automatically
for the user. During idle time, the thread may be called upon, and it
can begin to free memory previously allocated to an object in Java.
But don't worry - it won't delete your objects on you!
When there are no references to an object, it becomes fair game for
the garbage collector. Rather than calling some routine (like free in
C++), you simply assign all references to the object to null, or
assign a new class to the reference.
Example :
public static void main(String args[])
{
// Instantiate a large memory using class
MyLargeMemoryUsingClass myClass = new MyLargeMemoryUsingClass(8192);
// Do some work
for ( .............. )
{
// Do some processing on myClass
}
// Clear reference to myClass
myClass = null;
// Continue processing, safe in the knowledge
// that the garbage collector will reclaim myClass
}
If your code is about to request a large amount of memory, you may
want to request the garbage collector begin reclaiming space, rather
than allowing it to do so as a low-priority thread. To do this, add
the following to your code
System.gc();
The garbage collector will attempt to reclaim free space, and your
application can continue executing, with as much memory reclaimed as
possible (memory fragmentation issues may apply on certain platforms).

In my case, since my Java code is meant to be ported to other languages in the near future (Mainly C++), I at least want to pay lip service to freeing memory properly so it helps the porting process later on.
I personally rely on nulling variables as a placeholder for future proper deletion. For example, I take the time to nullify all elements of an array before actually deleting (making null) the array itself.
But my case is very particular, and I know I'm taking performance hits when doing this.

* "For example, say you'd declared a List at the beginning of a
method which grew in size to be very large, but was only required
until half-way through the method. You could at this point set the
List reference to null to allow the garbage collector to potentially
reclaim this object before the method completes (and the reference
falls out of scope anyway)." *
This is correct, but this solution may not be generalizable. While setting a List object reference to null -will- make memory available for garbage collection, this is only true for a List object of primitive types. If the List object instead contains reference types, setting the List object = null will not dereference -any- of the reference types contained -in- the list. In this case, setting the List object = null will orphan the contained reference types whose objects will not be available for garbage collection unless the garbage collection algorithm is smart enough to determine that the objects have been orphaned.

Althrough java provides automatic garbage collection sometimes you will want to know how large the object is and how much of it is left .Free memory using programatically import java.lang; and Runtime r=Runtime.getRuntime(); to obtain values of memory using mem1=r.freeMemory(); to free memory call the r.gc(); method and the call freeMemory()

Recommendation from JAVA is to assign to null
From https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19159-01/819-3681/abebi/index.html
Explicitly assigning a null value to variables that are no longer needed helps the garbage collector to identify the parts of memory that can be safely reclaimed. Although Java provides memory management, it does not prevent memory leaks or using excessive amounts of memory.
An application may induce memory leaks by not releasing object references. Doing so prevents the Java garbage collector from reclaiming those objects, and results in increasing amounts of memory being used. Explicitly nullifying references to variables after their use allows the garbage collector to reclaim memory.
One way to detect memory leaks is to employ profiling tools and take memory snapshots after each transaction. A leak-free application in steady state will show a steady active heap memory after garbage collections.

Forcing Java virtual machine to run garbage collector [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How to force garbage collection in Java?
(25 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I have a complex java application running on a large dataset. The application performs reasonably fast but as time goes it seems to eat lots of memory and slow down. Is there a way to run the JVM garbage collector without re-starting the application?

No, You cant force garbage collection.
Even using
System.gc();
You can just make a request for garbage collection but it depends on JVM to do it or not.
Also Garbage collector are smart enough to collect unused memory when required so instead of forcing garbage collection you should check if you are handling objects in a wrong way.
If you are handling objects in a wrong way (like keeping reference to unnecessary objects) there is hardly anything JVM can do to free the memory.
From Doc
Calling the gc method suggests that the Java Virtual Machine expend
effort toward recycling unused objects in order to make the memory
they currently occupy available for quick reuse. When control returns
from the method call, the Java Virtual Machine has made a best effort
to reclaim space from all discarded objects.
Open Bug regarding System.gc() documentation
The documentation for System.gc() is extremely misleading and fails to
make reference to the recommended practise of never calling
System.gc().
The choice of language leaves it unclear what the behaviour would be
when System.gc() is called and what external factors will influence
the behaviour.
Few useful link to visit when you think you should force JVM to free up some memory
1. How does garbage collection work
2. When does System.gc() do anything
3. Why is it bad practice to call System.gc()?
All says
1. You dont have control over GC in Java even System.gc() dont guarantee it.
2. Also its bad practise as forcing it may have adverse effect on performance.
3. Revisit your design and let JVM do his work :)

you should not relay on System.gc() - if you feel like you need to force GC to run it usually means that there is something wrong with your code/design. GC will run and clear your unused objects if they are ready to be created - please verify your design and think more about memory management, look as well for loops in object references.

The
System.gc()
call in java, suggest to the vm to run garbage collection. Though it doesn't guarantee that it will actually do it. Nevertheless the best solution you have. As mentioned in other responses jvisualvm utility (present in JDK since JDK 6 update 7), provides a garbage functionality as well.
EDIT:
your question open my appetite for the topic and I came across this resource:
oracle gc resource

The application performs reasonably fast but as time goes it seems to eat lots of memory and slow down.
These are a classic symptoms of a Java memory. It is likely that somewhere in your application there is a data structure that just keeps growing. As the heap gets close to full, the JVM spends an increasing proportion of its time running the GC in a (futile) attempt to claw back some space.
Forcing the GC won't fix this, because the GC can't collect the data structure. In fact forcing the GC to run just makes the application slower.
The cure for the problem is to find what is causing the memory leak, and fix it.

Performance gain/drop depends how often you need garbage collection and how much memory your jvm has and how much your program needs.
There is no certainity(its just a hint to the interpreter) of garbage collection when you call System.gc() but at least has a probability. With enough number of calls, you can achieve some statistically derived performance multiplier for only your system setup.
Below graph shows an example program's executions' consumptions and jvm was given only 1GB(no gc),1GB(gc),3GB(gc),3GB(no gc) heaps respectively to each trials.
At first, when jvm was given only 1GB memory while program needed 3.75GB, it took more than 50 seconds for the producer thread pool to complete their job because having less garbage management lead to poor object creation rate.
Second example is about %40 faster because System.gc() is called between each production of 150MB object data.
At third example, jvm is given 3GB memory space while keeping System.gc() on. More memory has given more performance as expected.
But when I turned System.gc() off at the same 3GB environment, it was faster!
Even if we cannot force it, we can have some percentage gain or drain of performance trying System.g() if we try long enough. At least on my windows-7 64 bit operating system with latest jvm .

Garbage collector runs automatically. You can't force the garbage collector.

I do not suggest that you do that but to force the garbage collector to run from within your java code you can just use all the available memory, this works because the garbage collector will run before the JVM throws OutOfMemoryError...
try {
List<Object> tempList = new ArrayList<Object>();
while (true) {
tempList.add(new byte[Integer.MAX_VALUE]);
}
} catch (OutOfMemoryError OME) {
// OK, Garbage Collector will have run now...
}

My answer is going to be different than the others but it will lead to the same point.
Explain:
YES it is possible to force the garbage collector with two methods used at the same time and in the same order this are:
System.gc ();
System.runFinalization ();
this two methods call will force the garbage collector to execute the finalise() method of any unreachable object and free the memory. however the performance of the software will down considerable this is because garbage runs in his own thread and to that one is not way to controlled and depending of the algorithm used by the garbage collector could lead to a unnecessary over processing, It is better if you check your code because it must be broken to you need use the garbage collector to work in a good manner.
NOTE: just to keep on mind this will works only if in the finalize method is not a reassignment of the object, if this happens the object will keep alive an it will have a resurrection which is technically possible.

java - How can Garbage Collector quickly know which objects do not have references to them any more?

I understand that in Java, if an object doesn't have any references to it any more, the garbage collector will reclaim it back some time later.
But how does the garbage collector know that an object has or has not references associated to it?
Is garbage collector using some kind of hashmap or table?
Edit:
Please note that I am not asking how generally gc works. really, I am not asking that.
I am asking specifically that How gc knows which objects are live and which are dead, with efficiencies.
That's why I say in my question that is gc maintain some kind of hashmap or set, and consistently update the number of references an object has?

A typical modern JVM uses several different types of garbage collectors.
One type that's often used for objects that have been around for a while is called Mark-and-Sweep. It basically involves starting from known "live" objects (the so-called garbage collection roots), following all chains of object references, and marking every reachable object as "live".
Once this is done, the sweep stage can reclaim those objects that haven't been marked as "live".
For this process to work, the JVM has to know the location in memory of every object reference. This is a necessary condition for a garbage collector to be precise (which Java's is).

Java has a variety of different garbage collection strategies, but they all basically work by keeping track which objects are reachable from known active objects.
A great summary can be found in the article How Garbage Collection works in Java but for the real low-down, you should look at Tuning Garbage Collection with the 5.0 Java[tm] Virtual Machine
An object is considered garbage when it can no longer be reached from any pointer in the running program. The most straightforward garbage collection algorithms simply iterate over every reachable object. Any objects left over are then considered garbage. The time this approach takes is proportional to the number of live objects, which is prohibitive for large applications maintaining lots of live data.
Beginning with the J2SE Platform version 1.2, the virtual machine incorporated a number of different garbage collection algorithms that are combined using generational collection. While naive garbage collection examines every live object in the heap, generational collection exploits several empirically observed properties of most applications to avoid extra work.
The most important of these observed properties is infant mortality. ...
I.e. many objects like iterators only live for a very short time, so younger objects are more likely to be eligible for garbage collection than much older objects.
For more up to date tuning guides, take a look at:
Java SE 6 HotSpot[tm] Virtual Machine Garbage Collection Tuning
Java Platform, Standard Edition HotSpot Virtual Machine Garbage Collection Tuning Guide (Java SE 8)
Incidentally, be careful of trying to second guess your garbage collection strategy, I've known many a programs performance for be trashed by over zealous use of System.gc() or inappropriate -XX options.

GC will know that object can be removed as quickly as it is possible. You are not expected to manage this process.
But you can ask GC very politely to run using System.gc(). It is just a tip to the system. GC does not have to run at that moment, it does not have to remove your specific object etc. Because GC is the BIG boss and we (Java programmers) are just its slaves... :(

The truth is that the garbage collector does not, in general, quickly know which objects no longer have any incoming references. And, in fact, an object can be garbage even when there are incoming references it.
The garbage collector uses a traversal of the object graph to find the objects that are reachable. Objects that are not reached in this traversal are deemed garbage, even if they are part of a cycle of references. The delay between an object being unreachable, and the garbage collector actually collecting the object, could be arbitrarily long.

There is no efficient way - it will still require traversal of the heap, but there is a hacky way: when the heap is divided into smaller pieces (thus no need to scan the entire heap). This is the reason we have generational garbage collectors, so that the scanning takes less time.
This is relatively "easy" to answer when your entire application is stopped and you can analyze the graph of objects. It all starts from GC roots (I'll let you find the documentation for what these are), but basically these are "roots" that are not collected by the GC.
From here a certain scan starts that analyzes the "live" objects: objects that have a direct (or transitive) connection to these roots, thus not reclaimable. In graph theory this is know to "color/traverse" your graph by using 3 colors: black, grey and white. White means it is not connected to the roots, grey means it's sub-graph is not yet traversed, black means traversed and connected to the roots. So basically to know what exactly is dead/alive right now - you simply need to take all your heap that is white initially and color it to black. Everything that is white is garbage. It is interesting that "garbage" is really identified by a GC by knowing what is actually alive. There are some drawings to visualize this here for example.
But this is the simple scenario: when your application is entirely stopped (for seconds at times) and you can scan the heap. This is called a STW - stop the world event and people hate these usually. This is what parallel collectors do: stop everything, do whatever GC has to (including finding garbage), let the application threads start after that.
What happens when you app is running and you are scanning the heap? Concurrently? G1/CMS do this. Think about it: how can you reason about a leaf from a graph being alive or not when your app can change that leaf via a different thread.
Shenandoah for example, solves this by "intercepting" changes over the graph. While running concurrently with your application, it will catch all the changes and insert these to some thread local special queues, called SATB Queues (snapshot at the begging queues); instead of altering the heap directly. When that is finished, a very short STW event will occur and these queues will be drained. Still under the STW what that drain has "caused" is computed, i.e. : extra coloring of the graph. This is far simplified, just FYI. G1 and CMS do it differently AFAIK.
So in theory, the process is not really that complicated, but implementing it concurrently is the most challenging part.

Can I Force Garbage Collection in Java? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Forcing Garbage Collection in Java?
Can I Force Garbage Collection in Java by any means?
System.gc() is just a suggestion.It's useless.
When I know for sure that some resources won't be used any more,why can't I force to clean them?
Just like delete() in C++ and free() in C?
When there are lots of resources that can't be reused,this can really suck the performance.All that we can do is sleep().
Any solutions?Thanks

Nope, System.gc() is as close as you can get. Java isn't C or C++, the JVM manages memory for you, so you don't have that kind of fine grained control. If you set objects you're no longer using to null, or loose all references, they will get cleaned up. And the GC is pretty smart, so it should take good care of you.
That said, if you are on a unix box, and force a thread dump (kill -3), it'll pretty much force garbage collection.

You shouldn't be trying to force GC - if you are running low on memory then you have a memory leak somewhere. Forcing GC at that point won't help, because if you are holding a reference to the object then it still won't be garbage collected.
What you need to do is solve the real problem, and make sure you are not holding references to objects you are not using any more.
Some common culprits:
Holding lots of references in a large object graph that never get cleared up. Either set references to null when you don't need them any more, or better still simplify your object graph so it doesn't need all the extra long-term references.
Caching objects in a hashmap or something similar that grows huge over time. Stop doing this, or use something like Google's CacheBuilder to create a proper soft reference cache.
Using String.intern() excessively on large numbers of different strings over time.
References with larger scope than they need. Are you using an instance variable when it could be a local variable, for example?

There is no way to explicitly instruct the JVM to collect garbage. This is only performed when the system needs the resources.
The only two actions I'm aware of to potentially get the GC running are the following:
As you stated, attempt to "suggest" that GC now would be a good time by called System.gc().
Set any references you are not using to the null reference to make the elements eligible for collection.
On my second point, see the answer here: Garbage collector in java - set an object null. In essence, if you don't make the objects you don't need available for garbage collection (by losing the reference you have to it) then there is no reason for the garbage collector to run, because it's unaware of any available garbage.
In addition, it's important to consider why/how those objects in memory are affecting performance:
Are you getting lots of OutOfMemoryExceptions? This could be resolved by point #2 and by increasing the available heap space for the JVM.
Have you done measurements to see that more objects in the JVM's allocated heap space makes a difference in performance? Determining when you could let references to objects go earlier could help reduce these issues.