[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7710?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16445698#comment-16445698
]
Facundo Velazquez commented on CXF-7710:
----------------------------------------
Hi [~deki] . I've sent the PR with the suggested changes. Please let me know if
you need something more.
> ClientImpl is memory-leak prone
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: CXF-7710
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7710
> Project: CXF
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Facundo Velazquez
> Priority: Critical
> Attachments: heapdump_Leak_Suspects.zip, leak capture.png
>
>
> In the Mule ESB we are seeing a memory leak caused by non-released objects in
> the
> org.apache.cxf.endpoint.ClientImpl.
> After some research, I could see that the requestContext and the
> responseContext have a thread local implementation. As our code calls the
> client from different threads, in a high load scenario, lots of entries will
> be put in the requestContext map. Take into account that we clean each
> requestContext value (that is an EchoContext object), but an entry per thread
> is kept alive in the requestContext map (with an empty EchoContext map).
> You'll able to see in the attached files that this is causing a memory leak.
> Even in my tests trying to reproduce the issue, I've obtained a fatal
> OutOfMemoryError.
> Looking at the code, I've seen that the request context is a WeakHashMap,
> however the keys are threads. I supposed the purpose of this implementation
> is that entries can be removed when necessary by the garbage collector.
> However, if the threads are pooled (which is our case), strong references
> will be pointing to them, and will be never collected.
> I suppose an easy solution could be to use the thread names as keys instead
> threads objects directly. If this approach is taken, consider using string
> constructors to wrap the literal name for ensuring its garbage collection
> (since this is another well-know issue -->
> [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14494875/weakreference-string-didnt-garbage-collected-how|https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14494875/weakreference-string-didnt-garbage-collected-how).]
> ).
> Another solution, that entails more changes, would be to use a Guava Cache,
> setting an expiration time.
> If the first approach is implemented, could you provide a way to clean the
> requestContext programmatically?, so in this way, we don't have to depend on
> the garbage collection process.
> Thank you very much.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
