[concurrency-interest] Backport: ConcurrentLinkedQueue/BlockingLinkedQueueMemory Leak?

Dawid Kurzyniec dawidk at mathcs.emory.edu
Sun Mar 26 20:40:34 EST 2006


Brian O'Connell wrote:
>
>   I am seeing some odd behavior in a project I am working on.  I have 
> a system that contains 5 work queues all of which have objects put on 
> the queue with add() and removed with a poll() until null loop.
> I found that after sometime, perhaps in the area of 10 minutes I run 
> out of memory.  I had this occur with both the ConcurrentLinkedQueue 
> and the BlockingLinkedQueue implementations.  If I change to an
> ArrayBlockingQueue I never see this behavior (and I also never throw 
> an IllegalStateException so I am not putting too many objects on the 
> queue).
>   In debugging this I had a thread print out the return from size() on 
> all 5 queues every second.  None of them ever grew larger than 9000 
> (another thread was inserting 9000 entries per second on one of the 
> queues.)  However, when I ran out of memory I analyzed the heapdump 
> and had over 2 million ConcurrentLinkedQueue$Node or 
> BlockingLinkedQueue$Node objects in memory.
>   I am using version 2.0 from August.  I was wondering if this is a 
> reported bug?  I imagine if not, then there must be a bug somewhere 
> else in my program but I have yet to locate it.  (...)

Brian,

First: are you using j.u.c. on 5.0, or backport-util-concurrent on 1.4? 
What platform / JVM?


ConcurrentLinkedQueue and BlockingLinkedQueue implementations are 
actually quite different; I would be surprised if they both contained 
bugs manifesting themselves in identical ways. So I would be inclined to 
suspect that, after all, your code occassionally "go crazy" on filling 
up the queue; e.g. maybe one of the consumers crashes?... Perhaps you 
just wasn't lucky enough to reproduce this behavior while debugging?...

Why don't you use bounded queues anyway - it is just safer, unless 
producers and consumers are synced in some way so you can be 
_absolutely_ sure that producers' rate won't exceed consumers'. So try 
using a bounded LinkedBlockingQueue and see if the problem persists. I 
would also try to run the program under a memory profiler, which can 
show you black on white where the leak comes from.

Regards,
Dawid Kurzyniec



More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list