RFR: JDK-8066859 java/lang/ref/OOMEInReferenceHandler.java failed with java.lang.Exception: Reference Handler thread died

Laurent Bourgès bourges.laurent at gmail.com
Thu May 7 18:06:48 UTC 2015


Thanks for long and detailled answer.

I know now better why OOME should not happen. However any application may
also use phantom references and the ReferenceHandler thread will call
Cleaner.run () which could catch OOME from the application code
implementing thunk.run (). Am I right ?

>> If this block also throws a new oome2 due to the first oome1 (no memory
left), it will work but I would have prefered a more explicit solution and
check oome1 first ...

I looked back at your patch and it is fine. Howevdr I wonder if it would be
possible to avoid any allocation in the catch(Throwable) block:
- preallocate the PriviledgeAction
- avoid new Error(x) to get its stack trace ? Do you know any trick like
ones in SharedSecrets that could dump the stack without any allocation in
case of urgency ?

> You have a point and I asked myself the same question. The question is
how to treat OOME thrown from thunk.run(). Current behavior is to exit()
JVM for any exception (Throwable). I maintained that semantics. I only
added a handler for OOME thrown in the handler of the 1st exception. I
might have just exit()-ed the VM if OOME is thrown, but leaving no trace
and just exiting VM would not help anyone diagnose what went wrong. So I
opted for keeping the VM running for a while by delaying the handling of
1st exception to "better times". If better times never come, then the
application is probably stuck anyway.

Seems very good after a 2nd look.
However, it could loop for a while if no more memory left ?
For example: oome1 => oome2 (catch) => throw x=> oome2 (catch) => ....

> An alternative would be to catch OOME from thunk.run() and ignore it
(printing it out would be ugly if VM is left to run), but that would
silently ignore OOMEs thrown from thunk.run() and noone would notice that
Cleaner(s) might not have clean-ed up the resources they should.

I am a bit lost but I like logging such exceptional case but if no
allocation can happen, how to ensure logging such case anyway ?

> Anyway. If none of the Cleaner.thunk's run() methods can throw any
exception, then my handling of OOME is redundant and a code-path never
taken. But I would still leave it there in case some new Cleaner use comes
along which is not verified yet...

Agreed. It is always better to handle such exceptional case if you can at
least log them...

Best regards,

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list