Do not introspect static properties #8707
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mbien
approved these changes
Aug 4, 2025
Member
mbien
left a comment
mbien
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i don't really have much experience with this, but if nothing relies on static elements this should be fine of course. (not tested)
MartinBalin
approved these changes
Aug 5, 2025
Member
|
the |
mbien
approved these changes
Aug 6, 2025
Member
Author
|
Eh; sorry, accidentaly hit merge :-/ on this to delivery :-/ |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A followup to #8703 that I couldn't deliver on time before it was merged. The culprit for the OOM was that the introspection included static properties of the dumped objects. These values are not (still) needed and should they be provided, some tweaks should be implemented to somehow handle class-based enums like
JvmVendorSpec.The OOM happened since from a reference to
JvmVendorSpec.ADOPTIUM, all its static fields were dumped, soADOPTOPENJDK. FromADOPTOPENJDK,ADOPTIUMwas avoided, but all others were dumped (except ADOPTIUM and ADOPTOPENJDK). And so on. When it went back to rootJvmVendorSpec.ADOPTIUM, and to the next siblingAMAZON, all statics except these two were dumped. The same for each of the fields as a root. If I count well, it is13! * 13items in total, which seems sufficient for OOM.This PR reverts @mbien exclusion of
vendor(not needed any more) and avoids static field dumps, which will cover mor cases.