Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 98746 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2010 15:53:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 21 Nov 2010 15:53:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 75704 invoked by uid 500); 21 Nov 2010 15:54:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 75384 invoked by uid 500); 21 Nov 2010 15:54:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 75373 invoked by uid 99); 21 Nov 2010 15:54:08 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:54:08 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bimargulies@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.41 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.41] (HELO mail-bw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.214.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:54:02 +0000 Received: by bwz16 with SMTP id 16so5569458bwz.0 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:53:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=114OGnMebM7Lyze4Y3SyUPmLwMw9Y8+fvA3fzT/5HUw=; b=Cye5W03acE4E4cTcqizgwtil1C9P3fH9LNAA5HT4GtMkAB/D2pkj/Zr0M8iPFRPd7H 6RB+Gksw+6J/Z0xgPDKUK+3dwEcb543j0qeAIbbdAFKxVY0q82hZQmCxTfFBrHE0C4i/ lj3r1C9U2xUE4U1s+nK5uy9VBGkoIvZIYwJTM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ou5I+dILMgR2eZemuYkXsMMXjNrSH/9w2C/yRyGWR/uRLZYvnpZK6g0CISHxQIIzSA +Vv1lEF9QxLyidwwKqmsWernG8gWcEgoHS2XUUGbktYHgjaAhZfsE28c02Wl/FDVIJal +lnITeXHXnO3wEk8TyoNYEsbq221fJ+Gx9cKc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.113.142 with SMTP id a14mr4109312bkq.206.1290354820717; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:53:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.141.11 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:53:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <72573857-4806-4872-976E-66C177689B09@apache.org> References: <72573857-4806-4872-976E-66C177689B09@apache.org> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:53:40 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Permgen, permgen From: Benson Margulies To: dkulp@apache.org Cc: dev@cxf.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Now you've made the mistake of showing some interest in this :-) Consider this line from the yourkit trace. "#6666","2:34.164","main","WSDLManagerImpl.loadDefinition","sun.reflect.GeneratedConstructorAccessor65","loaded" Someone has done something reflective that creates a class, and that class sticks around. I suspect that the WSDLFactory is the culprit here. Got any ideas for how to force it into the context class loader? On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:34 AM, wrote: > > > On Nov 21, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> I see two apparent sinks of permgen in our build from yourkit. >> >> One is the XSD-to-Java mojo, which doesn't belong to us. But we might >> be able to wrap it in such a way as to change its behavior. > > Or just use the cxf-xjc-plugin that we do have control over. > > Dan > > > >> >> The other is the SOAPBindingUtil.getProxy. The proxy classes, which >> co-locate in the class loader of the classes they proxy, never go >> away. >> >> So, they end up in the per-plugin class loader, which isn't going to >> go away for the life of the build. >> >> So, it looks like we need an additional classloader in the path here >> that can be GC'd. >> >> The WSDL2Java mojo is the top of this. >> >> Question: should SOAPBindingUtil just use the thread context class >> loader, which would allow us to easily deal with this in the mojo, >> instead of sticking the proxies into the same class loader as the >> things proxied? >> >> I think so. > >