JDK 7 文档对SoftReference
有这样的说法:
"在虚拟机引发内存不足错误之前,保证已清除对软可访问对象的所有软引用。"
但是,在我的测试程序中,我始终看到OutOfMemoryError
(下面的"陌生人行为"部分除外):
// RefObjectTest.java
import java.util.*;
import java.lang.ref.*;
public class RefObjectTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ArrayList<byte[]> leaks = new ArrayList<>();
byte[] obj = new byte[10 * 1024 * 1024];
SoftReference<byte[]> ref = new SoftReference<>(obj);
// WeakReference is supposed to be eagerly GC'ed, but I see no
// difference in terms of program behavior: still get OOME.
//
// WeakReference<byte[]> ref = new WeakReference<>(obj);
obj = null;
while(true) {
byte[] x = ref.get();
if(x == null) {
System.out.println("Referent stands garbage collected!!");
break;
} else {
System.out.println("Referent still alive.");
}
// Leak memory in small, 10k increments. If soft reference
// worked the way it's advertized, then just before the OOME, the
// 10MB referent should have been GC'ed to accomodate this small
// 10K new memory request. But it doesn't appear to work that way!
// try {
leaks.add(new byte[10 * 1024]);
// } catch(OutOfMemoryError e) {
// System.out.println(ref.get() == null ? "Referent cleared" :
// "Referent still alive");
// }
// VERY STRANGE: If I re-instate the above try-catch block, then no OOME is
// thrown, and the program keeps printing "Referent still alive" lines
// forever until I finally kill it with a Ctrl+C.
// Uncommenting gc() tends to delay the OOME in terms of time,
// but OOME eventually does happen, and after the same number of
// iterations of this loop.
//
// System.gc();
}
}
}
下面是输出:
$ java -Xmx15m RefObjectTest
Referent still alive.
...
Referent still alive.
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
at RefObjectTest.main(RefObjectTest.java:38)
陌生人行为
非常奇怪的是,如果我重新恢复try-catch块,程序似乎永远运行良好,打印"Referent Still Alive."行,直到我累了并杀死它。
$ java -version
java version "1.7.0_45"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_45-b18)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 24.45-b08, mixed mode)
$
$ uname -a
Linux ida 3.10.11-100.fc18.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Sep 9 13:06:31 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
在这一切中,我错过了什么?
一点也不奇怪,分配失败,引发异常。通过捕获异常,您说程序可以继续,不捕获异常,您说您无法处理它并且程序退出。
在你的 while 循环中,你正在做:
byte[] x = ref.get();
这是从您的软引用创建新的强引用。一旦您这样做,它就不再有资格收集。在继续执行新分配之前,您不会清除该强引用。
完成测试后,请x = null
。