JDK-6502317 : Deoptimization code of Java 1.5.x looks leaking memory.
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: hotspot
  • Sub-Component: compiler
  • Affected Version: solaris_10,5.0u11,5.0u8
  • Priority: P1
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • OS:
    linux_redhat_3.0,linux_redhat_4.0,solaris_10 linux_redhat_3.0,linux_redhat_4.0,solaris_10
  • CPU: x86,sparc
  • Submitted: 2006-12-08
  • Updated: 2011-02-16
  • Resolved: 2007-03-17
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
Other JDK 6 JDK 7 Other
5.0u12,hs10Fixed 6u2Fixed 7Fixed hs10Fixed
Related Reports
Duplicate :  
JDK-6522848 - memory leak in 64-bit JVM 1.5.0_09 on RHEL4 U4 with javax.naming.directory.InitialDirContext()
Description
Deoptimization code of JIT compiler in JVM 1.5 seems to be leaking memory under some situation.
Comments
EVALUATION When lazy deopt was added and the vframeArray code was rewritten this leak was introduced. After going through the C2 code, found that these get deallocated in unpack_on_stack() which calls deallocate_monitor_chunks(). void vframeArray::deallocate_monitor_chunks() { JavaThread* jt = JavaThread::current(); for (int index = 0; index < frames(); index++ ) { MonitorChunk* chunk = element(index)->monitors(); if (chunk != NULL) { jt->remove_monitor_chunk(chunk); } } } void JavaThread::remove_monitor_chunk(MonitorChunk* chunk) { guarantee(monitor_chunks() != NULL, "must be non empty"); if (monitor_chunks() == chunk) { set_monitor_chunks(chunk->next()); } else { MonitorChunk* prev = monitor_chunks(); while (prev->next() != chunk) prev = prev->next(); prev->set_next(chunk->next()); } } In remove_monitor_chunk, we just set the pointer of the list to next chunk and don't actually delete the passed chunk. Thanks to Poonam for finding this.
10-01-2007
WORK AROUND Use -client optoin.
08-12-2006