Hi, thanks for the great analysis - could you please open a jira issue for this? We're not planning any releases for 1.3.x and rather suggest to use the latest 1.4.x version. The only new requirement of the 1.4 version is Java 6.
Carsten 2014-10-02 22:21 GMT+02:00 Hartmut Lang <[email protected]>: > Hi all, > > using EventAdmin 1.3.2 we run in an OutOfMemory issue caused be not > delivered async events. > Drilling down the problem i found that the problem is caused by an > interrupted thread which issues an log-event. > In EventAdmin 1.3.2 the async-delivery uses DefaultThreadPool based on > PooledExecutor. > If the already interrupted thread enters the execute-method in > PooledExecutor a InterruptedException is thrown before the TaskExecutor was > added to the Thread-Pool. > This Exception is catched(not handled, only logged) in the > DefaultThreadPool. > As a result the TaskExecuter was not scheduled in the ThreadPool but is > still part of the m_running_threads. > All new events are added to the pool of the TaskExecuter, adding in a > increasing LinkedList. The TaskExecutor is never started again. Memory is > leaking. > > As stated we see this in EventAdmin 1.3.2. > I understand that EventAdmin 1.4.x was changed using ExecutorService > instead of PooledExecutor. > Also e.g. FELIX-4627 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4627> > seems > to fix a leaking problem in 1.4.2 > But still i see the not handled (only logging) exception catched in > DefaultThreadPool. > > public void executeTask(final Runnable task) > { > try > { > this.executor.submit(task); > } > catch (final Throwable t) > { > LogWrapper.getLogger().log( > LogWrapper.LOG_WARNING, > "Exception: " + t, t); > // ignore this > } > } > > The submit-call here does not throw InterruptedException so a already > interrupted task entring this section can not cause harm, right? > But the submit method can potentially throw a RejectedExecutionException. > Couldn't this also result in the same condition? TaskExecutor not scheduled > but still added to m_running_threads? > Is there a bug-fix planned for 1.3.x? Or do we have to switch to 1.4.x? > > Thanks for reading this long message ;-) > Hartmut > -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland [email protected]
