Does GC guarantee that cleared References are enqueued to ReferenceQueue in topological order?
Posted
by Dimitris Andreou
on Stack Overflow
See other posts from Stack Overflow
or by Dimitris Andreou
Published on 2010-03-23T01:42:08Z
Indexed on
2010/03/23
2:01 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 454
Say there are two objects, A
and B
, and there is a pointer A.x --> B
, and we create, say, WeakReference
s to both A
and B
, with an associated ReferenceQueue
.
Assume that both A
and B
become unreachable. Intuitively B
cannot be considered unreachable before A
is. In such a case, do we somehow get a guarantee that the respective references will be enqueued in the intuitive (topological when there are no cycles) order in the ReferenceQueue
? I.e. ref(A) before ref(B). I don't know - what if the GC marked a bunch of objects as unreachable, and then enqueued them in no particular order?
I was reviewing Finalizer.java of guava, seeing this snippet:
private void cleanUp(Reference<?> reference) throws ShutDown {
...
if (reference == frqReference) {
/*
* The client no longer has a reference to the
* FinalizableReferenceQueue. We can stop.
*/
throw new ShutDown();
}
frqReference
is a PhantomReference to the used ReferenceQueue
, so if this is GC'ed, no Finalizable{Weak, Soft, Phantom}References can be alive, since they reference the queue. So they have to be GC'ed before the queue itself can be GC'ed - but still, do we get the guarantee that these references will be enqueued to the ReferenceQueue
at the order they get "garbage collected" (as if they get GC'ed one by one)? The code implies that there is some kind of guarantee, otherwise unprocessed references could theoretically remain in the queue.
Thanks
© Stack Overflow or respective owner