On 05/28/2015 07:35 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Mandy,
On 05/27/2015 03:32 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Taking it further - is it simpler to return String[] of all
classnames including the duplicated ones and have the VM do the
count? Are you concerned with the size of the String[]?
Yes, the histogram is much smaller than the list of all instances.
There can be millions of instances waiting in finalizer queue, but
only a few distinct classes.
Do you happen to know what libraries are the major contributors to these
millions of finalizers?
It has been strongly recommended to avoid finalizers (see Effective Java
Item 7). I'm not surprised that existing code is still using
finalizers while we should really encourage them to migrate away from it.
What could be done in Java to simplify things in native code but still
not format the output is to convert the array of Map.Entry(s) into an
Object[] array of alternating {String, int[], String, int[], .... }
Would this simplify native code for the price of a little extra work
in Java? The sizes of old and new arrays are not big (# of distinct
classes of finalizable objects in the queue).
I also prefer writing in Java and writing less native code (much
simplified). It's an interface that we have to agree upon and keep it
simple. Having the returned Object[] as alternate String and int[] is a
reasonable compromise.
ReferenceQueue.java - you can move @SuppressWarning from the method to
just the field variable "rn"
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
Reference<? extends T> rn = r.next;
Finalizer.java
It's better to rename printFinalizationQueue as it inspects the
finalizer reference queue (maybe getFinalizerHistogram?). Can you move
this method to the end of this class and add the comment saying that
this is invoked by VM for jcmd -finalizerinfo support and @return to
describe the returned content. I also think you can remove
@SuppressWarnings for this method.
Mandy
