I know from reading Microsoft documentation that the "primary" use of the IDisposable interface is to clean up unmanaged resources.
To me, "unmanaged" means things like database connections, sockets, window handles, etc. But, I've seen code where the Dispose() method is implemented to free managed resources, which seems redundant to me, since the garbage collector should take care of that for you.
For example:
public class MyCollection : IDisposable
{
private List<String> _theList = new List<String>();
private Dictionary<String, Point> _theDict = new Dictionary<String, Point>();
// Die, clear it up! (free unmanaged resources)
public void Dispose()
{
_theList.clear();
_theDict.clear();
_theList = null;
_theDict = null;
}
}
My question is, does this make the garbage collector free memory used by MyCollection any faster than it normally would?
Edit: So far people have posted some good examples of using IDisposable to clean up unmanaged resources such as database connections and bitmaps. But suppose that _theList in the above code contained a million strings, and you wanted to free that memory now, rather than waiting for the garbage collector. Would the above code accomplish that?
The point of Dispose is to free unmanaged resources. It needs to be done at some point, otherwise they will never be cleaned up. The garbage collector doesn't know how to call DeleteHandle() on a variable of type IntPtr, it doesn't know whether or not it needs to call DeleteHandle().
Note: What is an unmanaged resource? If you found it in the Microsoft .NET Framework: it's managed. If you went poking around MSDN yourself, it's unmanaged. Anything you've used P/Invoke calls to get outside of the nice comfy world of everything available to you in the .NET Framework is unmanaged – and you're now responsible for cleaning it up.
The object that you've created needs to expose some method, that the outside world can call, in order to clean up unmanaged resources. The method can be named whatever you like:
public void Cleanup()
or
public void Shutdown()
But instead there is a standardized name for this method:
public void Dispose()
There was even an interface created, IDisposable, that has just that one method:
public interface IDisposable
{
void Dispose()
}
So you make your object expose the IDisposable interface, and that way you promise that you've written that single method to clean up your unmanaged resources:
public void Dispose()
{
Win32.DestroyHandle(this.CursorFileBitmapIconServiceHandle);
}
And you're done. Except you can do better.
What if your object has allocated a 250MB System.Drawing.Bitmap (i.e. the .NET managed Bitmap class) as some sort of frame buffer? Sure, this is a managed .NET object, and the garbage collector will free it. But do you really want to leave 250MB of memory just sitting there – waiting for the garbage collector to eventually come along and free it? What if there's an open database connection? Surely we don't want that connection sitting open, waiting for the GC to finalize the object.
If the user has called Dispose() (meaning they no longer plan to use the object) why not get rid of those wasteful bitmaps and database connections?
So now we will:
get rid of unmanaged resources (because we have to), and
get rid of managed resources (because we want to be helpful)
So let's update our Dispose() method to get rid of those managed objects:
public void Dispose()
{
//Free unmanaged resources
Win32.DestroyHandle(this.CursorFileBitmapIconServiceHandle);
//Free managed resources too
if (this.databaseConnection != null)
{
this.databaseConnection.Dispose();
this.databaseConnection = null;
}
if (this.frameBufferImage != null)
{
this.frameBufferImage.Dispose();
this.frameBufferImage = null;
}
}
And all is good, except you can do better!
What if the person forgot to call Dispose() on your object? Then they would leak some unmanaged resources!
Note: They won't leak managed resources, because eventually the garbage collector is going to run, on a background thread, and free the memory associated with any unused objects. This will include your object, and any managed objects you use (e.g. the Bitmap and the DbConnection).
If the person forgot to call Dispose(), we can still save their bacon! We still have a way to call it for them: when the garbage collector finally gets around to freeing (i.e. finalizing) our object.
Note: The garbage collector will eventually free all managed objects.
When it does, it calls the Finalize
method on the object. The GC doesn't know, or
care, about your Dispose method.
That was just a name we chose for
a method we call when we want to get
rid of unmanaged stuff.
The destruction of our object by the Garbage collector is the perfect time to free those pesky unmanaged resources. We do this by overriding the Finalize() method.
Note: In C#, you don't explicitly override the Finalize() method.
You write a method that looks like a C++ destructor, and the
compiler takes that to be your implementation of the Finalize() method:
~MyObject()
{
//we're being finalized (i.e. destroyed), call Dispose in case the user forgot to
Dispose(); //<--Warning: subtle bug! Keep reading!
}
But there's a bug in that code. You see, the garbage collector runs on a background thread; you don't know the order in which two objects are destroyed. It is entirely possible that in your Dispose() code, the managed object you're trying to get rid of (because you wanted to be helpful) is no longer there:
public void Dispose()
{
//Free unmanaged resources
Win32.DestroyHandle(this.gdiCursorBitmapStreamFileHandle);
//Free managed resources too
if (this.databaseConnection != null)
{
this.databaseConnection.Dispose(); //<-- crash, GC already destroyed it
this.databaseConnection = null;
}
if (this.frameBufferImage != null)
{
this.frameBufferImage.Dispose(); //<-- crash, GC already destroyed it
this.frameBufferImage = null;
}
}
So what you need is a way for Finalize() to tell Dispose() that it should not touch any managed resources (because they might not be there anymore), while still freeing unmanaged resources.
The standard pattern to do this is to have Finalize() and Dispose() both call a third(!) method; where you pass a Boolean saying if you're calling it from Dispose() (as opposed to Finalize()), meaning it's safe to free managed resources.
This internal method could be given some arbitrary name like "CoreDispose", or "MyInternalDispose", but is tradition to call it Dispose(Boolean):
protected void Dispose(Boolean disposing)
But a more helpful parameter name might be:
protected void Dispose(Boolean itIsSafeToAlsoFreeManagedObjects)
{
//Free unmanaged resources
Win32.DestroyHandle(this.CursorFileBitmapIconServiceHandle);
//Free managed resources too, but only if I'm being called from Dispose
//(If I'm being called from Finalize then the objects might not exist
//anymore
if (itIsSafeToAlsoFreeManagedObjects)
{
if (this.databaseConnection != null)
{
this.databaseConnection.Dispose();
this.databaseConnection = null;
}
if (this.frameBufferImage != null)
{
this.frameBufferImage.Dispose();
this.frameBufferImage = null;
}
}
}
And you change your implementation of the IDisposable.Dispose() method to:
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true); //I am calling you from Dispose, it's safe
}
and your finalizer to:
~MyObject()
{
Dispose(false); //I am *not* calling you from Dispose, it's *not* safe
}
Note: If your object descends from an object that implements Dispose, then don't forget to call their base Dispose method when you override Dispose:
public override void Dispose()
{
try
{
Dispose(true); //true: safe to free managed resources
}
finally
{
base.Dispose();
}
}
And all is good, except you can do better!
If the user calls Dispose() on your object, then everything has been cleaned up. Later on, when the garbage collector comes along and calls Finalize, it will then call Dispose again.
Not only is this wasteful, but if your object has junk references to objects you already disposed of from the last call to Dispose(), you'll try to dispose them again!
You'll notice in my code I was careful to remove references to objects that I've disposed, so I don't try to call Dispose on a junk object reference. But that didn't stop a subtle bug from creeping in.
When the user calls Dispose(): the handle CursorFileBitmapIconServiceHandle is destroyed. Later when the garbage collector runs, it will try to destroy the same handle again.
protected void Dispose(Boolean iAmBeingCalledFromDisposeAndNotFinalize)
{
//Free unmanaged resources
Win32.DestroyHandle(this.CursorFileBitmapIconServiceHandle); //<--double destroy
...
}
The way you fix this is tell the garbage collector that it doesn't need to bother finalizing the object – its resources have already been cleaned up, and no more work is needed. You do this by calling GC.SuppressFinalize() in the Dispose() method:
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true); //I am calling you from Dispose, it's safe
GC.SuppressFinalize(this); //Hey, GC: don't bother calling finalize later
}
Now that the user has called Dispose(), we have:
freed unmanaged resources
freed managed resources
There's no point in the GC running the finalizer – everything's taken care of.
Couldn't I use Finalize to cleanup unmanaged resources?
The documentation for Object.Finalize says:
The Finalize method is used to perform cleanup operations on unmanaged resources held by the current object before the object is destroyed.
But the MSDN documentation also says, for IDisposable.Dispose:
Performs application-defined tasks associated with freeing, releasing, or resetting unmanaged resources.
So which is it? Which one is the place for me to cleanup unmanaged resources? The answer is:
It's your choice! But choose Dispose.
You certainly could place your unmanaged cleanup in the finalizer:
~MyObject()
{
//Free unmanaged resources
Win32.DestroyHandle(this.CursorFileBitmapIconServiceHandle);
//A C# destructor automatically calls the destructor of its base class.
}
The problem with that is you have no idea when the garbage collector will get around to finalizing your object. Your un-managed, un-needed, un-used native resources will stick around until the garbage collector eventually runs. Then it will call your finalizer method; cleaning up unmanaged resources. The documentation of Object.Finalize points this out:
The exact time when the finalizer executes is undefined. To ensure deterministic release of resources for instances of your class, implement a Close method or provide a IDisposable.Dispose implementation.
This is the virtue of using Dispose to cleanup unmanaged resources; you get to know, and control, when unmanaged resource are cleaned up. Their destruction is "deterministic".
To answer your original question: Why not release memory now, rather than for when the GC decides to do it? I have a facial recognition software that needs to get rid of 530 MB of internal images now, since they're no longer needed. When we don't: the machine grinds to a swapping halt.
Bonus Reading
For anyone who likes the style of this answer (explaining the why, so the how becomes obvious), I suggest you read Chapter One of Don Box's Essential COM:
Direct link: Chapter 1 sample by Pearson Publishing
magnet: 84bf0b960936d677190a2be355858e80ef7542c0
In 35 pages he explains the problems of using binary objects, and invents COM before your eyes. Once you realize the why of COM, the remaining 300 pages are obvious, and just detail Microsoft's implementation.
I think every programmer who has ever dealt with objects or COM should, at the very least, read the first chapter. It is the best explanation of anything ever.
Extra Bonus Reading
When everything you know is wrong archiveby Eric Lippert
It is therefore very difficult indeed to write a correct finalizer,
and the best advice I can give you is to not try.
IDisposable is often used to exploit the using statement and take advantage of an easy way to do deterministic cleanup of managed objects.
public class LoggingContext : IDisposable {
public Finicky(string name) {
Log.Write("Entering Log Context {0}", name);
Log.Indent();
}
public void Dispose() {
Log.Outdent();
}
public static void Main() {
Log.Write("Some initial stuff.");
try {
using(new LoggingContext()) {
Log.Write("Some stuff inside the context.");
throw new Exception();
}
} catch {
Log.Write("Man, that was a heavy exception caught from inside a child logging context!");
} finally {
Log.Write("Some final stuff.");
}
}
}
The purpose of the Dispose pattern is to provide a mechanism to clean up both managed and unmanaged resources and when that occurs depends on how the Dispose method is being called. In your example, the use of Dispose is not actually doing anything related to dispose, since clearing a list has no impact on that collection being disposed. Likewise, the calls to set the variables to null also have no impact on the GC.
You can take a look at this article for more details on how to implement the Dispose pattern, but it basically looks like this:
public class SimpleCleanup : IDisposable
{
// some fields that require cleanup
private SafeHandle handle;
private bool disposed = false; // to detect redundant calls
public SimpleCleanup()
{
this.handle = /*...*/;
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (!disposed)
{
if (disposing)
{
// Dispose managed resources.
if (handle != null)
{
handle.Dispose();
}
}
// Dispose unmanaged managed resources.
disposed = true;
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
}
The method that is the most important here is the Dispose(bool), which actually runs under two different circumstances:
disposing == true: the method has been called directly or indirectly by a user's code. Managed and unmanaged resources can be disposed.
disposing == false: the method has been called by the runtime from inside the finalizer, and you should not reference other objects. Only unmanaged resources can be disposed.
The problem with simply letting the GC take care of doing the cleanup is that you have no real control over when the GC will run a collection cycle (you can call GC.Collect(), but you really shouldn't) so resources may stay around longer than needed. Remember, calling Dispose() doesn't actually cause a collection cycle or in any way cause the GC to collect/free the object; it simply provides the means to more deterministicly cleanup the resources used and tell the GC that this cleanup has already been performed.
The whole point of IDisposable and the dispose pattern isn't about immediately freeing memory. The only time a call to Dispose will actually even have a chance of immediately freeing memory is when it is handling the disposing == false scenario and manipulating unmanaged resources. For managed code, the memory won't actually be reclaimed until the GC runs a collection cycle, which you really have no control over (other than calling GC.Collect(), which I've already mentioned is not a good idea).
Your scenario isn't really valid since strings in .NET don't use any unamanged resources and don't implement IDisposable, there is no way to force them to be "cleaned up."
There should be no further calls to an object's methods after Dispose has been called on it (although an object should tolerate further calls to Dispose). Therefore the example in the question is silly. If Dispose is called, then the object itself can be discarded. So the user should just discard all references to that whole object (set them to null) and all the related objects internal to it will automatically get cleaned up.
As for the general question about managed/unmanaged and the discussion in other answers, I think any answer to this question has to start with a definition of an unmanaged resource.
What it boils down to is that there is a function you can call to put the system into a state, and there's another function you can call to bring it back out of that state. Now, in the typical example, the first one might be a function that returns a file handle, and the second one might be a call to CloseHandle.
But - and this is the key - they could be any matching pair of functions. One builds up a state, the other tears it down. If the state has been built but not torn down yet, then an instance of the resource exists. You have to arrange for the teardown to happen at the right time - the resource is not managed by the CLR. The only automatically managed resource type is memory. There are two kinds: the GC, and the stack. Value types are managed by the stack (or by hitching a ride inside reference types), and reference types are managed by the GC.
These functions may cause state changes that can be freely interleaved, or may need to be perfectly nested. The state changes may be threadsafe, or they might not.
Look at the example in Justice's question. Changes to the Log file's indentation must be perfectly nested, or it all goes wrong. Also they are unlikely to be threadsafe.
It is possible to hitch a ride with the garbage collector to get your unmanaged resources cleaned up. But only if the state change functions are threadsafe and two states can have lifetimes that overlap in any way. So Justice's example of a resource must NOT have a finalizer! It just wouldn't help anyone.
For those kinds of resources, you can just implement IDisposable, without a finalizer. The finalizer is absolutely optional - it has to be. This is glossed over or not even mentioned in many books.
You then have to use the using statement to have any chance of ensuring that Dispose is called. This is essentially like hitching a ride with the stack (so as finalizer is to the GC, using is to the stack).
The missing part is that you have to manually write Dispose and make it call onto your fields and your base class. C++/CLI programmers don't have to do that. The compiler writes it for them in most cases.
There is an alternative, which I prefer for states that nest perfectly and are not threadsafe (apart from anything else, avoiding IDisposable spares you the problem of having an argument with someone who can't resist adding a finalizer to every class that implements IDisposable).
Instead of writing a class, you write a function. The function accepts a delegate to call back to:
public static void Indented(this Log log, Action action)
{
log.Indent();
try
{
action();
}
finally
{
log.Outdent();
}
}
And then a simple example would be:
Log.Write("Message at the top");
Log.Indented(() =>
{
Log.Write("And this is indented");
Log.Indented(() =>
{
Log.Write("This is even more indented");
});
});
Log.Write("Back at the outermost level again");
The lambda being passed in serves as a code block, so it's like you make your own control structure to serve the same purpose as using, except that you no longer have any danger of the caller abusing it. There's no way they can fail to clean up the resource.
This technique is less useful if the resource is the kind that may have overlapping lifetimes, because then you want to be able to build resource A, then resource B, then kill resource A and then later kill resource B. You can't do that if you've forced the user to perfectly nest like this. But then you need to use IDisposable (but still without a finalizer, unless you have implemented threadsafety, which isn't free).
Scenarios I make use of IDisposable: clean up unmanaged resources, unsubscribe for events, close connections
The idiom I use for implementing IDisposable (not threadsafe):
class MyClass : IDisposable {
// ...
#region IDisposable Members and Helpers
private bool disposed = false;
public void Dispose() {
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
private void Dispose(bool disposing) {
if (!this.disposed) {
if (disposing) {
// cleanup code goes here
}
disposed = true;
}
}
~MyClass() {
Dispose(false);
}
#endregion
}
Yep, that code is completely redundant and unnecessary and it doesn't make the garbage collector do anything it wouldn't otherwise do (once an instance of MyCollection goes out of scope, that is.) Especially the .Clear() calls.
Answer to your edit: Sort of. If I do this:
public void WasteMemory()
{
var instance = new MyCollection(); // this one has no Dispose() method
instance.FillItWithAMillionStrings();
}
// 1 million strings are in memory, but marked for reclamation by the GC
It's functionally identical to this for purposes of memory management:
public void WasteMemory()
{
var instance = new MyCollection(); // this one has your Dispose()
instance.FillItWithAMillionStrings();
instance.Dispose();
}
// 1 million strings are in memory, but marked for reclamation by the GC
If you really really really need to free the memory this very instant, call GC.Collect(). There's no reason to do this here, though. The memory will be freed when it's needed.
If MyCollection is going to be garbage collected anyway, then you shouldn't need to dispose it. Doing so will just churn the CPU more than necessary, and may even invalidate some pre-calculated analysis that the garbage collector has already performed.
I use IDisposable to do things like ensure threads are disposed correctly, along with unmanaged resources.
EDIT In response to Scott's comment:
The only time the GC performance metrics are affected is when a call the [sic] GC.Collect() is made"
Conceptually, the GC maintains a view of the object reference graph, and all references to it from the stack frames of threads. This heap can be quite large and span many pages of memory. As an optimisation, the GC caches its analysis of pages that are unlikely to change very often to avoid rescanning the page unnecessarily. The GC receives notification from the kernel when data in a page changes, so it knows that the page is dirty and requires a rescan. If the collection is in Gen0 then it's likely that other things in the page are changing too, but this is less likely in Gen1 and Gen2. Anecdotally, these hooks were not available in Mac OS X for the team who ported the GC to Mac in order to get the Silverlight plug-in working on that platform.
Another point against unnecessary disposal of resources: imagine a situation where a process is unloading. Imagine also that the process has been running for some time. Chances are that many of that process's memory pages have been swapped to disk. At the very least they're no longer in L1 or L2 cache. In such a situation there is no point for an application that's unloading to swap all those data and code pages back into memory to 'release' resources that are going to be released by the operating system anyway when the process terminates. This applies to managed and even certain unmanaged resources. Only resources that keep non-background threads alive must be disposed, otherwise the process will remain alive.
Now, during normal execution there are ephemeral resources that must be cleaned up correctly (as #fezmonkey points out database connections, sockets, window handles) to avoid unmanaged memory leaks. These are the kinds of things that have to be disposed. If you create some class that owns a thread (and by owns I mean that it created it and therefore is responsible for ensuring it stops, at least by my coding style), then that class most likely must implement IDisposable and tear down the thread during Dispose.
The .NET framework uses the IDisposable interface as a signal, even warning, to developers that the this class must be disposed. I can't think of any types in the framework that implement IDisposable (excluding explicit interface implementations) where disposal is optional.
I won't repeat the usual stuff about Using or freeing un-managed resources, that has all been covered. But I would like to point out what seems a common misconception.
Given the following code
Public Class LargeStuff
Implements IDisposable
Private _Large as string()
'Some strange code that means _Large now contains several million long strings.
Public Sub Dispose() Implements IDisposable.Dispose
_Large=Nothing
End Sub
I realise that the Disposable implementation does not follow current guidelines, but hopefully you all get the idea.
Now, when Dispose is called, how much memory gets freed?
Answer: None.
Calling Dispose can release unmanaged resources, it CANNOT reclaim managed memory, only the GC can do that. Thats not to say that the above isn't a good idea, following the above pattern is still a good idea in fact. Once Dispose has been run, there is nothing stopping the GC re-claiming the memory that was being used by _Large, even though the instance of LargeStuff may still be in scope. The strings in _Large may also be in gen 0 but the instance of LargeStuff might be gen 2, so again, memory would be re-claimed sooner.
There is no point in adding a finaliser to call the Dispose method shown above though. That will just DELAY the re-claiming of memory to allow the finaliser to run.
In the example you posted, it still doesn't "free the memory now". All memory is garbage collected, but it may allow the memory to be collected in an earlier generation. You'd have to run some tests to be sure.
The Framework Design Guidelines are guidelines, and not rules. They tell you what the interface is primarily for, when to use it, how to use it, and when not to use it.
I once read code that was a simple RollBack() on failure utilizing IDisposable. The MiniTx class below would check a flag on Dispose() and if the Commit call never happened it would then call Rollback on itself. It added a layer of indirection making the calling code a lot easier to understand and maintain. The result looked something like:
using( MiniTx tx = new MiniTx() )
{
// code that might not work.
tx.Commit();
}
I've also seen timing / logging code do the same thing. In this case the Dispose() method stopped the timer and logged that the block had exited.
using( LogTimer log = new LogTimer("MyCategory", "Some message") )
{
// code to time...
}
So here are a couple of concrete examples that don't do any unmanaged resource cleanup, but do successfully used IDisposable to create cleaner code.
If you want to delete right now, use unmanaged memory.
See:
Marshal.AllocHGlobal
Marshal.FreeHGlobal
Marshal.DestroyStructure
If anything, I'd expect the code to be less efficient than when leaving it out.
Calling the Clear() methods are unnecessary, and the GC probably wouldn't do that if the Dispose didn't do it...
Apart from its primary use as a way to control the lifetime of system resources (completely covered by the awesome answer of Ian, kudos!), the IDisposable/using combo can also be used to scope the state change of (critical) global resources: the console, the threads, the process, any global object like an application instance.
I've written an article about this pattern: http://pragmateek.com/c-scope-your-global-state-changes-with-idisposable-and-the-using-statement/
It illustrates how you can protect some often used global state in a reusable and readable manner: console colors, current thread culture, Excel application object properties...
I see a lot of answers have shifted to talk about using IDisposable for both managed and unmanaged resources. I'd suggest this article as one of the best explanations that I've found for how IDisposable should actually be used.
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/29534/IDisposable-What-Your-Mother-Never-Told-You-About
For the actual question; should you use IDisposable to clean up managed objects that are taking up a lot of memory the short answer would be no. The reason is that once your object that is holding the memory goes out of scope it is ready for collection. At that point any referenced child objects are also out of scope and will get collected.
The only real exception to this would be if you have a lot of memory tied up in managed objects and you've blocked that thread waiting for some operation to complete. If those objects where not going to be needed after that call completed then setting those references to null might allow the garbage collector to collect them sooner. But that scenario would represent bad code that needed to be refactored - not a use case of IDisposable.
IDisposable is good for unsubscribing from events.
Your given code sample is not a good example for IDisposable usage. Dictionary clearing normally shouldn't go to the Dispose method. Dictionary items will be cleared and disposed when it goes out of scope. IDisposable implementation is required to free some memory/handlers that will not release/free even after they out of scope.
The following example shows a good example for IDisposable pattern with some code and comments.
public class DisposeExample
{
// A base class that implements IDisposable.
// By implementing IDisposable, you are announcing that
// instances of this type allocate scarce resources.
public class MyResource: IDisposable
{
// Pointer to an external unmanaged resource.
private IntPtr handle;
// Other managed resource this class uses.
private Component component = new Component();
// Track whether Dispose has been called.
private bool disposed = false;
// The class constructor.
public MyResource(IntPtr handle)
{
this.handle = handle;
}
// Implement IDisposable.
// Do not make this method virtual.
// A derived class should not be able to override this method.
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
// This object will be cleaned up by the Dispose method.
// Therefore, you should call GC.SupressFinalize to
// take this object off the finalization queue
// and prevent finalization code for this object
// from executing a second time.
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
// Dispose(bool disposing) executes in two distinct scenarios.
// If disposing equals true, the method has been called directly
// or indirectly by a user's code. Managed and unmanaged resources
// can be disposed.
// If disposing equals false, the method has been called by the
// runtime from inside the finalizer and you should not reference
// other objects. Only unmanaged resources can be disposed.
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
// Check to see if Dispose has already been called.
if(!this.disposed)
{
// If disposing equals true, dispose all managed
// and unmanaged resources.
if(disposing)
{
// Dispose managed resources.
component.Dispose();
}
// Call the appropriate methods to clean up
// unmanaged resources here.
// If disposing is false,
// only the following code is executed.
CloseHandle(handle);
handle = IntPtr.Zero;
// Note disposing has been done.
disposed = true;
}
}
// Use interop to call the method necessary
// to clean up the unmanaged resource.
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport("Kernel32")]
private extern static Boolean CloseHandle(IntPtr handle);
// Use C# destructor syntax for finalization code.
// This destructor will run only if the Dispose method
// does not get called.
// It gives your base class the opportunity to finalize.
// Do not provide destructors in types derived from this class.
~MyResource()
{
// Do not re-create Dispose clean-up code here.
// Calling Dispose(false) is optimal in terms of
// readability and maintainability.
Dispose(false);
}
}
public static void Main()
{
// Insert code here to create
// and use the MyResource object.
}
}
There are things that the Dispose() operation does in the example code that might have an effect that would not occur due to a normal GC of the MyCollection object.
If the objects referenced by _theList or _theDict are referred to by other objects, then that List<> or Dictionary<> object will not be subject to collection but will suddenly have no contents. If there were no Dispose() operation as in the example, those collections would still contain their contents.
Of course, if this were the situation I would call it a broken design - I'm just pointing out (pedantically, I suppose) that the Dispose() operation might not be completely redundant, depending on whether there are other uses of the List<> or Dictionary<> that are not shown in the fragment.
One problem with most discussions of "unmanaged resources" is that they don't really define the term, but seem to imply that it has something to do with unmanaged code. While it is true that many types of unmanaged resources do interface with unmanaged code, thinking of unmanaged resources in such terms isn't helpful.
Instead, one should recognize what all managed resources have in common: they all entail an object asking some outside 'thing' to do something on its behalf, to the detriment of some other 'things', and the other entity agreeing to do so until further notice. If the object were to be abandoned and vanish without a trace, nothing would ever tell that outside 'thing' that it no longer needed to alter its behavior on behalf of the object that no longer existed; consequently, the 'thing's usefulness would be permanently diminished.
An unmanaged resource, then, represents an agreement by some outside 'thing' to alter its behavior on behalf of an object, which would useless impair the usefulness of that outside 'thing' if the object were abandoned and ceased to exist. A managed resource is an object which is the beneficiary of such an agreement, but which has signed up to receive notification if it is abandoned, and which will use such notification to put its affairs in order before it is destroyed.
First of definition. For me unmanaged resource means some class, which implements IDisposable interface or something created with usage of calls to dll. GC doesn't know how to deal with such objects. If class has for example only value types, then I don't consider this class as class with unmanaged resources.
For my code I follow next practices:
If created by me class uses some unmanaged resources then it means that I should also implement IDisposable interface in order to clean memory.
Clean objects as soon as I finished usage of it.
In my dispose method I iterate over all IDisposable members of class and call Dispose.
In my Dispose method call GC.SuppressFinalize(this) in order to notify garbage collector that my object was already cleaned up. I do it because calling of GC is expensive operation.
As additional precaution I try to make possible calling of Dispose() multiple times.
Sometime I add private member _disposed and check in method calls did object was cleaned up. And if it was cleaned up then generate ObjectDisposedException
Following template demonstrates what I described in words as sample of code:
public class SomeClass : IDisposable
{
/// <summary>
/// As usually I don't care was object disposed or not
/// </summary>
public void SomeMethod()
{
if (_disposed)
throw new ObjectDisposedException("SomeClass instance been disposed");
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
}
private bool _disposed;
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (_disposed)
return;
if (disposing)//we are in the first call
{
}
_disposed = true;
}
}
The most justifiable use case for disposal of managed resources, is preparation for the GC to reclaim resources that would otherwise never be collected.
A prime example is circular references.
Whilst it's best practice to use patterns that avoid circular references, if you do end up with (for example) a 'child' object that has a reference back to its 'parent', this can stop GC collection of the parent if you just abandon the reference and rely on GC - plus if you have implemented a finalizer, it'll never be called.
The only way round this is to manually break the circular references by setting the Parent references to null on the children.
Implementing IDisposable on parent and children is the best way to do this. When Dispose is called on the Parent, call Dispose on all Children, and in the child Dispose method, set the Parent references to null.
I think people are conflating the PATTERN of IDisposable with the primary purpose of IDisposable which was meant to help clean up unmanaged resources. We all know this. Some think the pattern has some sort of magical powers that clears memory and frees resources. The PATTERN does NOT do this. But the usage of the pattern with the methods that are implemented DO clear memory and free resources.
The pattern is simply a built in try{} finally{} block. Nothing more. Nothing less. So what does that mean? You can create a block of code that lets you do something at the end without having to do extra code for it. It provides a CUSTOM block you can use to segment code and scope.
My example:
//My way
using (var _ = new Metric("My Test"))
{
DoSomething(); //You now know all work in your block is being timed.
}
//MS mockup from memory
var sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
DoSomething(); //something fails? I never get the elapsed time this way
sw.Stop();
Metric class
public class Metric : IDisposable
{
private string _identifier;
private DateTime _start;
public Metric(string identifier)
{
_identifier = identifier;
_start = DateTime.Now;
}
public void Dispose()
{
Console.WriteLine(_identifier + " - " + (DateTime.Now - _start).TotalMilliseconds)
}
}
So, the default dispose pattern implementation looks like this:
class SomeClass : IDisposable
{
// Flag: Has Dispose already been called?
bool disposed = false;
// Public implementation of Dispose pattern callable by consumers.
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
// Protected implementation of Dispose pattern.
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposed)
return;
if (disposing) {
// Free any other managed objects here.
}
// Free any unmanaged objects here.
disposed = true;
}
~SomeClass()
{
Dispose(false);
}
}
It's said that:
If the method call comes from a finalizer (that is, if disposing is
false), only the code that frees unmanaged resources executes. Because
the order in which the garbage collector destroys managed objects
during finalization is not defined, calling this Dispose overload with
a value of false prevents the finalizer from trying to release managed
resources that may have already been reclaimed.
The question is: why is it supposed that the objects that are referenced by the object of SomeClass may already have been freed and we shouldn't try to dispose them when the method is called from the finalizer? If those objects are still referenced by our SomeClass object they cannot be freed, isn't it true? It's said that:
Those with pending (unrun) finalizers are kept alive (for now) and are
put onto a special queue. [...] Prior to each object’s finalizer
running, it’s still very much alive — that queue acts as a root
object.
So, again, our SomeClass object is referenced by this queue (which is the same as to be referenced by a root). And other objects the SomeClass object has references to should be alive as well (as they are rooted through the SomeClass object). Then why and how they might have been freed by the time the SomeClass finalizer is called?
Konrad Kokosa has an impressive explanation on his book Pro .NET Memory Management.
(emphasis added)
During GC, at the end of Mark phase, GC checks the finalization queue to see if any of the finalizable objects are dead. If they are some, they cannot be yet delete because their finalizers will need to be executed. Hence, such object is moved to yet another queue called fReachable queue. Its name comes from the fact that it represents finalization reachable objects - the ones that are now reachable only because of finalization. If there are any such objects found, GC indicates to the dedicated finalizer thread there’s work to do.
Finalization thread is yet another thread created by the.NET runtime. It removes objects from the fReachable queue one by one and calls their finalizers. This happens after GC resumes managed threads because finalizer code may need to allocate objects. Since the only root to this object is removed from the fReachable queue, the next GC that condemns the generation this object is in will find it to be unreachable and reclaim it.
Moreover, fReachable queue is treated as a root considered during Mark phase because the finalizer thread may not be fast enough to process all objects from it between GCs. This exposes the finalizable objects more to a Mid-life crisis - they may stay in fReachable queue for a while consuming generation 2 just because of pending finalization.
I think the key here is:
fReachable queue is treated as a root considered during Mark phase because the finalizer thread may not be fast enough to process all objects from it between GCs.
Objects in .NET exist while any references exist to them. They cease to exist as soon as the last reference does so. Storage used by an object will never be reclaimed while the object exists, but there are a couple of things the GC does before it reclaims storage:
There is a special list, called the "finalizer queue", which holds references to all objects which have registered finalizers. After identifying every other reference that exists anywhere in the universe, the GC will examine all objects in the finalizer queue to see if any references have been found to them. If this process causes it to find an object which had not been discovered previously, it copies a reference to another list called the "freachable queue". Any time the freachable queue is non-empty and no finalizer is running, the system will pull a reference from that queue and call finalize upon it.
The GC will also inspect the targets of all weak references and invalidate any weak reference whose target hadn't been identified by any live strong reference.
Note that a finalize method does not "garbage-collect" an object. Instead, it prolongs the existence of the object until finalize is called upon it, for purpose of allowing it to satisfy any obligations it might have to outside entities. If at that time no reference to the object exists anywhere in the universe, the object will cease to exist.
Note that it's possible for two objects with finalizers to hold references to each other. In such situations, the order in which their finalizers run is unspecified.
I have a Wrapper<T> where T : class that wraps around my objects. I store WeakReference<Wrapper<T>> in a ConcurrentDictionary, to implement weakly-referenced thread-safe cache for immutable objects that gets automatically cleaned up when memory is required for something else. I need to call ConcurrentDictionary.TryRemove in the Wrapper destructor to free the weak references in the dictionary that no longer point to a valid object.
It is well-known that we should not use any locking inside destructors because of the risk of dead-lock. So I wonder, can I use ConcurrentDictionary.TryRemove safely in a destructor? I am afraid it might have been implemented using SpinLock or some other tool and thus still presents a risk of dead-lock when used in destructor.
You can see the implementation of the ConcurrentDictionary at this location and the TryRemove implementation uses 'lock(...)'.
What you could do inside the destructor is use the thread pool to perform the removal of the item from the dictionary. You would still need to mark the wrapper instance as no longer valid, so that if a call is made to any of its public methods between the finalizer running and the thread pool removing it, you could detect this and reject the call.
So the reason you DON'T want to use locking in a destructor is due to the fact that the destructor might be called by a FinalizerWorker in a sperate thread while stopping execution on all threads.
Thus, if one thread is in the middle of a ConcurrencyDicitonary operation when the FinalizerWorker is kicked off you might deadlock if the destructor tries to lock the ConcurrencyDictionary (this can be a very difficult to reproduce deadlock).
A spin lock wont help you because if ANY currently executing thread has the ConcurrencyDictionary locked or the Spinner variable locked it WILL NOT release it until the FinalizerWorker completes, which it wont because it will spin/lock forever.
You'r main options here is to implement the IDisposable interface with a SuppressFinalize(this) call, since your object will suppress the Finalizer worker no deadlock can occure and ConcurrencyDictionary operations ARE SAFE !
Thus if you pre-empt Finalizer using object.Dispose() you should be safe use ConcurrencyDictionary, but otherwise DO NOT use any types of locks in your Finalizer Dispose(false) call or you will deadlock at some point.
// Design pattern for a base class.
public class Base: IDisposable
{
private bool disposed = false;
//Implement IDisposable.
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (!disposed)
{
//Disposing outside the FinalizerWorker (SAFE)
if (disposing)
m_pDictionary.TryRemove(this);
disposed = true;
}
}
// Use C# destructor syntax for finalization code.
~Base()
{
// Simply call Dispose(false).
Dispose (false);
}
The answers on here are leading you astray. Using locks in a destructor/finalizer is discouraged because it can easily lead to deadlocks, especially when implemented "manually" instead of using a concurrent collection, but sometimes it is necessary. Even on "stop the world" GC implementations finalizers run on a separate finalizer thread that chugs along concurrently with your application.
First thing is first though - it is VERY RARE that what you are suggesting is the ideal way of implementing your desired functionality, to the point where I am quite confident it isn't. To start, WeakReferences are not suitable for use in caching because they get collected far more often than just when "memory is needed". A proper cache implementation monitors memory levels with strong references and releases them as needed when memory usage is too high.
Even in implementations like a WeakValueDictionary where you don't want the collection holding onto the value if it can be collected, the implementation still doesn't receive object collection notifications. Instead you just remove the entry whenever you stumble upon one that was collected, or you scan the entire collection for dead entries every X operations, or every Y seconds, etc.
That said, if you do run into a situation where you NEED to do something when an object is collected, you can use concurrent collections just fine.
Assuming you don't do anything silly, queuing up an ID in a notification queue or removing an item from a concurrent dictionary is safe because those operations are fast and block for only a very short period of time and your application is not blocked while your finalizers run.
It's something you should avoid as much as possible, but sometimes it's the best and only way to implement something. Just make sure that the lock is fast and used as minimally as possible, and not part of any multi-level locking schemes that are easy to accidentally get wrong and deadlock.
I have a class and got a method that doin so many things in memory and need to be disposed when its jobs done.But i have looked for MSDN for solution.There is an example thats not solved my problem.When my Class is instanced and run this method my memory is getting bigger and bigger.How can i Dispose it when its job done ?
Here is my CODES ;
class Deneme
{
public Deneme()
{ }
~Deneme()
{
GC.Collect();
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
public void TestMetodu()
{
System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show("Test");
// This is my method that doing big jobs :)
}
}
Deneme CCCX = new Deneme();
CCCX.TestMetodu();
CCCX = null;
So i cant dispose it with this.
~Deneme()
{
GC.Collect();
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
You don't need to use GC.Collect() or GC.SuppressFinalize(this);, because at this point, the garbage collector is already collecting the object.
You want to use the Dispose method, so you can encapsulate the object use in a using statement. Here is a link that will show you the pattern on how to implement it:
http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/Ashish1/dispose02152006095441AM/dispose.aspx
link to MSDN:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.idisposable.dispose.aspx
private bool IsDisposed
{
get;set;
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
~CLASS_NAME()
{
Dispose(false);
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposedStatus)
{
if (!IsDisposed)
{
IsDisposed = true;
// Released unmanaged Resources
if (disposedStatus)
{
// Released managed Resources
}
}
}
implement IDisposable (with function Dispose) and then wrap the creation of your object in a using statement. (when the object goes out of scope (after the using block), the dispose will be called.)
Furthermore, never call GC.Collect().
Does your class directly use any unmanaged resources, or hold references to any IDisposable objects? If so, then you should probably implement IDisposable to clean-up those resources, and then wrap all uses of your class in a using block.
If your class only uses managed resources, and doesn't hold references to any IDisposable objects, then you should probably let the GC do its job without any interference. Just ensure that the lifetime of any instances of your class are kept as short as possible.
I think there are a few issues here and you need to look into this in a little more detail, the .net garbage collector usually does a pretty good job on its own and needs verly litle help from the developer.
Use the Dispose interface if you
really really need to (usually this
is to release any unmanaged
resources you may have used)
dont call gc.collect(), you can
really mess up the garbage
collection cycle
in you code use the using statement
on any objects that impliment
idisposable to ensure they are made
available for collection as soon as
possible.
To me it seems you need to look at the "big jobs" as it seems there may be a memory leak there, proper coding of that would probably alleviate the need to do any cleaning up afterwards.
here is a good read on GC
Well, I don't quite understand your example. If you hold unmanaged resources (like File handles etc.) you want to implement IDisposable and override the member it provides, Dispose.
There is a recommended pattern when using IDisposable which you can read about at the .NET docs for IDisposable.
However this is not a guarantee that your object will be collected when you call Dispose, only that the resources it uses is freed (as long as you've implemented your class correctly of course.) As the documentation states:
The primary use of this interface is
to release unmanaged resources. The
garbage collector automatically
releases the memory allocated to a
managed object when that object is no
longer used. However, it is not
possible to predict when garbage
collection will occur. Furthermore,
the garbage collector has no knowledge
of unmanaged resources such as window
handles, or open files and streams.
Use the Dispose method of this
interface to explicitly release
unmanaged resources in conjunction
with the garbage collector. The
consumer of an object can call this
method when the object is no longer
needed.
IDisposable is only there for freeing unmanaged resources, your class however is managed. It is under the control of the garbage collector.
What I think you are asking for is managing the lifetime of the managed object (your class), which is as far as I know not recommended unless there is a really really strong reason to. I don't exactly have the most exotic needs but I've never had to do this myself.
It's normal for an application to use more and more memory (up to a certain point) until the memory is needed for something else. There is no reason for the application to waste time with cleaning up unused objects if the memory isn't needed, the computer doesn't run any faster from having a lot of unused memory.
If the application continues to grow uncontrollably, then you have a problem. If the memory goes back down after a while, it's not a problem. You can test to minimise the program, that normally causes it to return as much memory to the system as possible.
If you are using objects in your method that implements IDisposable you should make sure that they are disposed properly. Otherwise they can't be cleaned up until the garbage collector has first called the Finalize method on each of them. There is a background thread that runs Finalize calls one at a time, so if you leave a lot of objects undisposed, it can take a while until they are all processed and ready to be cleaned up by garbage collection.
I remember i was loading in images by streaming it from the net straight into a bitmap. close the stream, return the bitmap and held it in an image control.
I excepted when i did = loadPicture() the first bitmap would be freed like a smart pointer would do in C++. But it didnt and i consumed a lot of ram until i called dispose. So my question is.
How does the GC and Dispose able objects work in C#? and why isnt it implemented like a smart_ptr?
References are not smart pointers. Letting a reference-variable go out of scope, replacing it with another value, and/or setting it with null all do exactly nothing.
This is simply part of the CLI /GC design...
Gargage Collection (GC) will run when needed, and should clean up the managed memory used, and (if a finalizer is provided) any unmanaged resources too. But for deterministic cleanup: that is the entire purpose of IDisposable. It is your job to Dispose() such objects when you have finished with them - either via using, or by handing it to something else which assumes this responsibility (common, for example, with streams/readers etc).
using (StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(myfile)))
{
...
}
The GC kicks in when the runtime feels it is necessary.
The basic rule is: when you use an Disposable type (IDispose), then you (as the programmer) should release the resources used by that type as soon as possible, by calling Dispose when you do not longer need to use that type.
For instance, when you read a file, you close that file as soon as you've done reading it. (Calling close will also call dispose in this case).
You must call Dispose explicity on any object implementing IDisposable, otherwise your unmanaged resources will not be disposed. If you don't want to call it explicity, then you must override the Finalize method to call the Dispose method - that is why you will see this frequently:
class MyClass : IDisposable
{
...
~MyClass()
{
this.Dispose(false);
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposing)
{ /* dispose managed stuff also */ }
/* but dispose unmanaged stuff always */
}
}
smart_ptr are reference counted. While this allows for deterministic release of their resources when they are no longer referenced by any code, they do have their problems of their own: assigning references always requires the counter to be updated, circular references fail to be released automatically causing memory leaks, the memory manager is invoked more often.
The GC in .NET is a sweeping collector. It starts at any time when it feels that memory should be released (usually triggered by some memory usage condition, but not deterministic) and starts by building a list of all live references in the system (including the ones in CPU registers, nested references etc.). This works since we are in a managed environment where you cannot do pointer arithmetic etc. - the system can track all references. After the list of live references has been built, it basically releases all memory not known to be used anymore. Of course, this is just the basic sketch, for efficiency and management of unmanaged resources there is more to it like object generations, finalizers, etc., but that is not important for the basic understanding of how it works.
The IDisposable interface is used to implement the disposable pattern, which helps when you are working with objects that should be disposed in a deterministic way. The pattern is so that Dispose() is called explicitly when the object is no longer needed, therefore releasing unmanaged resources or closing handles etc., but not releasing its memory. This will be done by the GC later on, but it does not matter that this happens later, because the deterministic release of resources has already been performed.