Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E696D8E5 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 14:53:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 34183 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2011 14:53:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 33996 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2011 14:53:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 33987 invoked by uid 99); 3 May 2011 14:53:11 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 May 2011 14:53:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [80.12.242.2] (HELO smtp6.freeserve.com) (80.12.242.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 May 2011 14:53:02 +0000 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3j22.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 93A15300009B for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 16:52:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3j22.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8467D300009D for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 16:52:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.homeinbox.net (unknown [2.24.211.105]) by mwinf3j22.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 6FBB4300009B for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 16:52:42 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20110503145242457.6FBB4300009B@mwinf3j22.me.freeserve.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.homeinbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D02EAA9E1 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 15:52:42 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at homeinbox.net Received: from mail.homeinbox.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.homeinbox.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e3BWNpVEBQRc for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 15:52:37 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.23.9] (study03.dev.local [192.168.23.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.homeinbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C08F0EAA9E0 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 15:52:37 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4DC016B3.60601@apache.org> Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 15:52:35 +0100 From: Mark Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: 100% CPU Usage when stopping Tomcat after OOM condition References: <4DC00FA3.8010705@christopherschultz.net> <4DC01304.5020302@apache.org> <4DC0154F.7010908@ice-sa.com> In-Reply-To: <4DC0154F.7010908@ice-sa.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 03/05/2011 15:46, André Warnier wrote: > Mark Thomas wrote: >> On 03/05/2011 15:22, Christopher Schultz wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> Moments ago in our development environment, our webapp suffered an OOME >>> after many re-reployments (we know we have an undeploy-related leak). >>> When attempting to bounce Tomcat, the shutdown failed and I took a >>> thread dump which included the one non-trivial thread shown below. >>> >>> I haven't looked at the code yet to see if there is some kind of loop >>> around this code, but top reported 100% CPU usage from this process so I >>> suspect something like that was happening. >>> >>> We are using TC 6.0.32 on Debian Lenny and Sun/Oracle 32-bit >>> 1.6.0_22-b04 Server VM. >>> >>> This is less of a "help" request as it is an observation of an >>> unfortunate situation: the OOME is clearly the real problem and has >>> nothing to do with Tomcat itself. Unfortunately, after the OOME, Tomcat >>> was unable to shut down gracefully and that could be a problem in and of >>> itself. >> >> After an OOME there are no guarantees as to the state of the JVM. That >> Tomcat is unable to shut down cleanly in that case is not suprising. >> > Do I not remember seeing somewhere, at some point, a parameter named > "OOMParachute" or similar ? Yes, in the NIO connector. It may, or may not, provide the JVM with enough memory to exit gracefully. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org