If there is a better place to report things like this, let me know. I've done some looking at how much memory various kinds of Clojure data structures use, and come across some behavior that I think might be a memory leak, in the sense that perhaps a reference to a java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference object is being held onto after a call to vec, even though it isn't needed any more.
It might still be needed for reasons that I'm not aware of. I don't know the implementation well enough to say. Steps to reproduce the behavior (should work on at least OS X and Linux -- tested on OS X with java 1.6.0_13, and latest clojure and clojure-contrib from github): Get these two files: clj-run.sh memuse.clj You can either pull my whole clojure-benchmarks git repo (only a few megabytes), or just get those two files here: http://github.com/jafingerhut/clojure-benchmarks/tree/450da3b949550087e6b97333ba065c1fc875564a/memuse Edit clj-run.sh to set the location of your Clojure jar files. Then run: ./clj-run.sh 500000 5 1 When it prints "Done. Going to sleep now. Good night." then either put that process in the background, or in a separate shell window, find out the process ID of the java process created above, and run: jmap -histo:live <process_id> > jmap.txt My belief is that the ":live" part means that only live objects with references to them, that cannot be garbage collected, will be reported in the output. I've confirmed on my system that if I use "-histo" instead of "histo:live" that I get a lot more objects reported, which are presumably garbage. When I did this, one of the first several lines of output included a little more than 1 AtomicReference object per calls to vec. num #instances #bytes class name ---------------------------------------------- 6: 500022 12000528 java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference I think that this AtomicReference object is fairly new in the Clojure Java source code, with the addition of transients. It used to be an AtomicBoolean before that. Would it be correct to nullify the reference to the persistent object returned by a call to persistent! on a transient object? Thanks, Andy --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
