What conditions would prevent the JVM from running a FULL Garbage Collection when the CPU is at 5% to 8% load?
I am seeing a constant shallow GC cycle, but not able to tune the JVM to want to run FULL GC.
Where can I go to find the conditions that the JVM says "I am too busy to run".
When I was studying for my SCJP certification a lot of emphasis was made on
"You can not do anything to force the
GC to run at any given time, you can
just give hints to it"
The whole idea of having an automatic GC is precisely not having to worry about how or when it runs to clean up free memory for you. So, there is no way to actually change when or how GC does actually run... you would have to re-implement one JVM to do what you want.
There are just so many factors involved in this, there may be other, more elegant solutions for this.
It depends entirely on the garbage collector algorithm that you're using in your particular JDK. About all you can guarantee about garbage collection is that if the JVM throws an OutOfMemoryError, the garbage collector made its best effort to collect every unreachable/weakly reachable object. Even System.gc() doesn't guarantee anything, a no-op is a completely legal implementation.
Hence in that light I don't know if your question has any weight. If you truly believe that you need to tweak the garbage collector, it would help if you posted the problems you're seeing, and the profiling data that leads to believe that poor GC performance is the problem.
Outside of this, the garbage collector should be treated like a black box. The logic behind its implementation is surprisingly complex, and there's a very good chance it knows better than you what it ought to be doing at any given time. 99 times out of 100, trying to force the garbage collector to behave in a particular way will lower performance, not increase it.
It's not that it's to busy to run, but it does simply not need extra memory.
Related
Is there any way to change the frequency of the garbage collector, whether if to reduce it or increase it?
I found some articles that say that in order to increase the frequency, I need to increase the young generation to allow more objects to get into it before a GC is called.
But I didn't find anywhere a real way to do it, with real commands or actions or instructions HOW to make it happen (to reduce or to increase GC frequency).
You first configure which garbage collector you want to use, then you may be able to configure said garbage collector.
Whatever you read about it is irrelevant / invalid / misleading / vastly oversimplified. Garbage Collection is extremely complicated, specifically so complicated that talking about 'frequency' doesn't really make sense. 20 years ago garbage collection was simple:
Freeze every thread.
Make a list of all live objects.
Tree-walk these objects to find all objects reachable from those live objects, and keep walking.
Start from position 0 in the heap memory allocated to the JVM and start moving every object still reachable, updating all pointers as you go, and therefore silently overwriting all non-reachables.
Now you're done; memory is nicely compacted, lots of free space, unfreeze the world.
That model? It died 20 years ago. Garbage collection is vastly more complicated now, with aspects like:
Live tracking: Where the JVM uses heuristic mechanisms to be able to fast-collect a subset of garbage. (basically, reference counting; if the refcount is 0, it's definitely garbage. However, non-0 refcounts could also be garbage, for example if a refers to b, b refers to a, and nothing 'live' refers to either: Both refcounts are 1, but they're still garbage). These garbage collectors still collect them, just, not as quickly as refcount-0 garbage. What does 'frequency' mean now?
Generations, with vastly different approaches between generations. For example, your basic eden/'fast garbage' system works in reverse: A java thread gets a page worth of memory, new objects are created here, completely unreachable by any other thread. Once it is full, the system does a quick check on what this and only this thread can currently reach in context, makes a new page, copies over just the objects still reachable, and marks the old page as free. "Free garbage collection" just occurred. What the heck would 'frequency' mean here? There is nothing to configure: When the page is full, this process kicks in. Until the page is full, it doesn't. There's nothing to configure.
that's just 2 of like 50 things that garbage collectors do that cannot be described simply as a thing to which the term 'frequency' can be applied unambiguously.
Every JDK version sees pretty massive changes to the GC implementations available, and the way these implementations works, and even the settings these implementations support. None of it is part of the core java spec, which means that the OpenJDK team is far more cavalier about changing them between java releases, and for the same reason, alternate JDK providers like Azul, coretto etc often provide extra GC impls and extra settings.
So what do I do?
Stop worrying. The general rule of thumb is: If you mess with GC settings, you'll make everything worse. Get an expert if you need to tweak GC settings, and rest safe in the knowledge that it is highly unlikely you need it.
Forget about what you read. It's outdated information.
I have a memory leak in Java in which I have 9600 ImapClients in my heap dump and only 7800 MonitoringTasks. This is a problem since every ImapClient should be owned by a MonitoringTask, so those extra 1800 ImapClients are leaked.
One problem is I can't isolate them in the heap dump and see what's keeping them alive. So far I've only been able to pinpoint them by using external evidence to guess at which ImapClients are dangling. I'm learning OQL which I believe can solve this but it's coming slowly, and it'll take a while before I can understand how to perform something recursive like this in a new query language.
Determining a leak exists is difficult, so here is my full situation:
this process was spewing OOMEs a week ago. I thought I fixed it and I'm trying to verify whether my fixed worked without waiting another full week to see if it spews OOMEs again.
This task creates 7000-9000 ImapClients on start then under normal operation connects and disconnects very few of them.
I checked another process running older pre-OOME code, and it showed numbers of 9000/9100 instead of 7800/9600. I do not know why old code will be different from new code but this is evidence of a leak.
The point of this question is so I can determine if there is a leak. There is a business rule that every ImapClient should be a referee of a MonitoringTask. If this query I am asking about comes up empty, there is not a leak. If it comes up with objects, together with this business rule, it is not only evidence of a leak but conclusive proof of one.
Your expectations are incorrect, there is no actual evidence of any leaks occuring
The Garbage Collector's goal is to free space when it is needed and
only then, anything else is a waste of resources. There is absolutely
no benefit in attempting to keep as much free space as possible
available all the time and only down sides.
Just because something is a candidate for garbage collection doesn't
mean it will ever actually be collected, and there is no way to
force garbage collection either.
I don't see any mention of OutOfMemoryError anywhere.
What you are concerned about you can't control, not directly anyway
What you should focus on is what in in your control, which is making sure you don't hold on to references longer than you need to, and that you are not duplicating things unnecessarily. The garbage collection routines in Java are highly optimized, and if you learn how their algorithms work, you can make sure your program behaves in the optimal way for those algorithms to work.
Java Heap Memory isn't like manually managed memory in other languages, those rules don't apply
What are considered memory leaks in other languages aren't the same thing/root cause as in Java with its garbage collection system.
Most likely in Java memory isn't consumed by one single uber-object that is leaking ( dangling reference in other environments ).
Intermediate objects may be held around longer than expected by the garbage collector because of the scope they are in and lots of other things that can vary at run time.
EXAMPLE: the garbage collector may decide that there are candidates, but because it considers that there is plenty of memory still to be had that it might be too expensive time wise to flush them out at that point in time, and it will wait until memory pressure gets higher.
The garbage collector is really good now, but it isn't magic, if you are doing degenerate things, it will cause it to not work optimally. There is lots of documentation on the internet about the garbage collector settings for all the versions of the JVMs.
These un-referenced objects may just have not reached the time that the garbage collector thinks it needs them to for them to be expunged from memory, or there could be references to them held by some other object ( List ) for example that you don't realize still points to that object. This is what is most commonly referred to as a leak in Java, which is a reference leak more specifically.
I don't see any mention of OutOfMemoryError
You probably don't have a problem in your code, the garbage collection system just might not be getting put under enough pressure to kick in and deallocate objects that you think it should be cleaning up. What you think is a problem probably isn't, not unless your program is crashing with OutOfMemoryError. This isn't C, C++, Objective-C, or any other manual memory management language / runtime. You don't get to decide what is in memory or not at the detail level you are expecting you should be able to.
Check your code for finalizers, especially anything relating to IMapclient.
It could be that your MonitoringTasks are being easily collected whereas your IMapclient's are finalized, and therefore stay on the heap (though dead) until the finalizer thread runs.
The obvious answer is to add a WeakHashMap<X, Object> (and Y) to your code -- one tracking all instances of X and another tracking all instances of Y (make them static members of the class and insert every object into the map in the constructor with a null 'value'). Then you can at any time iterate over these maps to find all live instances of X and Y and see which Xs are not referenced by Ys. You might want to trigger a full GC first, to ignore objects that are dead and not yet collected.
Finalize methods are invoked by the garbage collector prior to reclaiming the memory occupied by the object, which has the finalize() method. This means you do not know when the objects are going to be finalized.
Why we dont know when garbage collector will run. Does the founders of Java also dont know this. There will be a specific condition or time (for sure) when garbage collector will run.
Why we dont know when garbage collector will run.
It is a deliberate design choice. This gives the JVM the flexibility to do garbage collection at a time (and in a way) that gives optimal performance, or minimal pauses ... depending on the collector that the user has chosen.
There will be a specific condition or time (for sure) when garbage collector will run.
No.
The only thing that it is pretty much guaranteed is that a full GC will be run before the JVM decides to "give up" and throw an OutOfMemoryError.
There is a System.gc() method that you can call to suggest to the JVM that it should run a garbage collection. However:
The JVM is allowed to ignore the suggestion.
If the JVM pays attention to the suggestion, your application is liable to perform worse than if you just let the JVM decide. Calling System.gc() in production code is nearly always a BAD IDEA.
The bottom line is that if you want to guarantee that a certain action happens, you should not implement that action using a finaliser.
When the garbage collection is done is down to the implementation but it will usually happen when the free memory has reached below a certain threshold.
I remember hearing that it is allowed for an implementation to have no garbage collection at all!
You will not be able to tell for sure when the collection will happen without knowing the implementation details and then monitoring whatever it is that the GC is monitoring. But even this will have problems and it is highly discouraged as it completely defeats the portability of Java.
The is a method System.gc which:
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.
However use of this is also discouraged.
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.
Garbage collection is called automatically when an object is refered to is no longer available to any variable. But I like know why do we call explicitly using System.gc() when garbage collection is called automatically.When do we call System.gc();
You don't. As you say, garbage collection is automatic. System.gc() doesn't even force a garbage collection; it's simply a hint to the JVM that "now may be a good time to clean up a bit"
In general, trying to force the garbage collector to do what you want with System.gc() is a hack applied by people who think they know better than they actually do, or as an (attempted) workaround for broken code.
I've been writing Java for years and I've yet to see a situation where calling System.gc was really the right thing to do (in anything I've written)
We don't.
We just don't.
Perhaps my experience is limited, but I have not once found it necessary to call System.gc().
I will quote Brian Goetz on the performance aspect (if you haven't heard of him, look him up -- and read the rest of this article, too):
A third category where developers often mistakenly think they are helping the garbage collector is the use of System.gc(), which triggers a garbage collection (actually, it merely suggests that this might be a good time for a garbage collection). Unfortunately, System.gc() triggers a full collection, which includes tracing all live objects in the heap and sweeping and compacting the old generation. This can be a lot of work.
In general, it is better to let the system decide when it needs to collect the heap, and whether or not to do a full collection.
You don't need it. Think of it as a diagnostic tool, like being able to write to a debug console.
For example, imagine that if you were doing benchmarking, you would want to tell the GC to collect garbage after each benchmark run.
You do need it. It is very useful no matter what these other people say.
A usage example:
Say that you have just finished a long background task that has used a lot of memory. None of those objects are going to be used again. Since the task took a long time the user isn't going to care about another 5-10 seconds. This is a good time to garbage collect.
If you don't GC at that point, it is going to happen later. Probably during interactive use of the program at which point the user experience gets choppy.