[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-1985?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13019442#comment-13019442
 ] 

Jeanne Waldman commented on TRINIDAD-1985:
------------------------------------------

The LRUCache.patch should be for the related issue TRINIDAD-2026 memory leak in 
skinstyleprovider. This occurs if one application uses a bunch of different 
skins. 

> High live memory usage from SkinStyleProvider
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TRINIDAD-1985
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-1985
>             Project: MyFaces Trinidad
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Archetype
>    Affects Versions:  1.2.12-core
>            Reporter: Stevan Malesevic
>            Assignee: Jeanne Waldman
>         Attachments: LRUCache.patch
>
>
> We were checking a live memory usage in one app and noticed that some 83MB of 
> heap is pinned under SkinStyleProvider. This is under 14 instances of 
> FileSystemStyleCache$Entry each with about 6MB of memory
> Heap shows these keys for styles
> Locale        Version
> en    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0b7) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0b7
> ko    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) 
> Gecko/20100701 Firefox/3.5.11 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> en    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) 
> Gecko/20100701 Firefox/3.5.11 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> ko    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.10 
> (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/8.0.552.224 Safari/534.10
> en    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.10 
> (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/8.0.552.224 Safari/534.10
> ko    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) 
> Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3
> en    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) 
> Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3
> en    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.18) 
> Gecko/2010020220 Firefox/3.0.18 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> ko    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.18) 
> Gecko/2010020220 Firefox/3.0.18 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> en    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) 
> Gecko/20100315 Firefox/3.5.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> ko    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) 
> Gecko/20100315 Firefox/3.5.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> en    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.2; Trident/4.0; .NET 
> CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> en    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2) 
> Gecko/20100115 Firefox/3.6 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> en    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) 
> Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.5.15 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> en    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.10) 
> Gecko/20100914 Firefox/3.6.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> ko    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; 
> .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2)
> en    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; 
> .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2)
> en    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) 
> Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> en    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) 
> Gecko/20101130 Firefox/3.5.16 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> ko    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) 
> Gecko/20101130 Firefox/3.5.16 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
> en    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) 
> Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13
> Now beside the amount of memory pinned by single FileSystemStyleCache$Entry 
> the issue is that we apparently create too many different versions and there 
> is no restriction to the size of cache leaving open door for memory leak
> Two questions
> 1. Do we really have different styles for FF on 3.5 or 3.6 or so?  If not why 
> do we key by it?
> 2. Given different browsers and locales having cache as plain concurrent hash 
> map is actually a source of leak as over time it can accumulate more and 
> more. Do we have any restriction there? Should  the entries by LRU or have 
> exparation

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Reply via email to