Thanks. I added this to the bug report for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161911

-- Kevin


Rahman USTA wrote:
Hello Kevin;

One of our user reported "Must be a memory leak somewhere" in AsciidocFX project. It seems a similar issue.

You can see the issue here https://github.com/asciidocfx/AsciidocFX/issues/227

Thanks.

2016-07-21 2:38 GMT+03:00 Kevin Rushforth <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:

    I'll add a comment to that effect (although our incident triage
    team is good about spotting such duplicates).

    -- Kevin


    Itai wrote:

        Thank you. Having gotten no reply, and seeing the bug report
        was closed and with not means of commenting in the bug report
        system, I have since (about an hour ago) filed a more detailed
        report (JI-9042009). I believe they could be safely merged,
        but the second one does contain some more info.
        On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Kevin Rushforth
        <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>
        <mailto:[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:

            JI-9041860 has now been transferred to the JDK project as:

            https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161911

            Our support engineer was not able to reproduce the problem, so
            closed it as such. Based on the additional information you
            provided, I have reopened the bug and will ask someone on
        our team
            with a physical Linux setup to try to reproduce it.

            To answer your question, we are not aware of any such leaks.

            -- Kevin



            Itai wrote:

                I'm experiencing multiple memory leaks with JavaFX on
        Linux,
                to the point
                where I'm not sure which bug to report, as it seems like a
                systematic
                issue.

                The memory leak seems to be completely absent when
        using the
                software
                renderer (-Dprism.order=sw), and does not seem to
        happen on
                Windows
                (presumably not on Mac either, although I have no Mac
        to test it).

                Test cases include:

                1. Use ProgressIndicator with progress set to
        Indeterminate -
                with default
                (HW) renderer memory consumption quickly rises,
        climbing to
                8GB and more if
                not killed. With software renderer memory usage is
        reasonable.
                2. Using Scene Builder - after a few minutes with Scene
                Builder it quickly
                gobbles up all system memory - again, problem seems to
        go away
                if using
                software renderer. This test is less repeatable, as some
                actions seem more
                detrimental than others.
                3. Using Transitions on nodes (See attached code
        "Demo.java".
                I have filed
                a bug report about this issue, JI-9041860). Running with
                default renderer
                the simple program reaches 3GB within 30 seconds, and
        memory
                continues to
                climb. On software renderer memory consumption remains
        <100MB
                for a minute
                and more.

                As I said, I am no longer sure it is prudent to report
                specific bugs, as
                this seems to be some low-level problem. I just want
        to know
                if this is a
                known issue and if there is any way to get around it
        (besides
                using the
                software pipe, which obviously has it's own
        disadvantages).


                For reference, I'm using Debian (testing, updated today),
                kernel version
                4.6.2, Intel HD4000 GPU, Intel driver version 2.99.917
        (kms
                driver),
                OpenJDK version 1.8.0_91-8u91-b14-3-b14 (behavior is
        identical
                on Oracle
                version).

                If there is any other information needed please let me
        know.
                If this is a
                known issue I apologize, but I have tried searching
        and didn't
                find any
                reports of such behavior.

                Thank you.



--
Rahman USTA
Istanbul JUG
https://github.com/rahmanusta <http://www.kodcu.com/>

Reply via email to