Develop Reference

Supressing GC in .NET for Unit Test performance [duplicate]

I have a high performance application that is handling a very large amount of data. It is receiving, analysing and discarding enormous amounts of information over very short periods of time. This causes a fair amount of object churn that I am currently trying to optimize, but it also causes a secondary problem. When Garbage Collection kicks in it can cause some long delays as it cleans things up (by long I mean 10s to 100s of milliseconds). 99% of the time this is acceptable, but for brief windows of time about 1-2 minutes long I need to be absolutely sure that Garbage Collection does not cause a delay. I know when these periods of time will occur beforehand and I just need a way to make sure that Garbage collection doesn't happen during this period. The application is written in C# using .NET 4.0 Framework and uses both managed and unmanaged code if that matters.
My questions are;
Is it possible to briefly pause Garbage Collection for the entire program?
Is it possible to use System.GC.Collect() to force garbage collection before the window I need free of Garbage Collection and if I do how long will I be Garbage Collection free?
What advice do people have on minimizing the need for Garbage Collection overall?
Note - this system is fairly complex with lots of different components. I am hoping to avoid going to a approach where I have to implement a custom IDisposable interface on every class of the program.

.NET 4.6 added two new methods: GC.TryStartNoGCRegion and GC.EndNoGCRegion just for this.

GCLatencyMode oldMode = GCSettings.LatencyMode;
// Make sure we can always go to the catch block,
// so we can set the latency mode back to `oldMode`
RuntimeHelpers.PrepareConstrainedRegions();
try
{
GCSettings.LatencyMode = GCLatencyMode.LowLatency;
// Generation 2 garbage collection is now
// deferred, except in extremely low-memory situations
}
finally
{
// ALWAYS set the latency mode back
GCSettings.LatencyMode = oldMode;
}
That will allow you to disable the GC as much as you can. It won't do any large collections of objects until:
You call GC.Collect()
You set GCSettings.LatencyMode to something other than LowLatency
The OS sends a low-memory signal to the CLR
Please be careful when doing this, because memory usage can climb extremely fast while you're in that try block. If the GC is collecting, it's doing it for a reason, and you should only seriously consider this if you have a large amount of memory on your system.
In reference to question three, perhaps you can try reusing objects like byte arrays if you're receiving information through filesystem I/O or a network? If you're parsing that information into custom classes, try reusing those too, but I can't give too much good advice without knowing more about what exactly you're doing.
Here are some MSDN articles that can help too:
Latency Modes
Constrained Execution Regions (this is why we call PrepareConstrainedRegions())
Note: GCSettings.LatencyMode = GCLatencyMode.LowLatency can only be set if GCSettings.IsServerGC == false. IsServerGC can be changed in App.config:
<runtime>
<gcServer enabled="false" />
</runtime>

How to create a large(10gb+) persistent cache in .NET

Spin-off from my other question.
.NET Garbagecollector trouble. Blocks for 15-40 mins
I want to create a simple persistent cache. For simplicity, everything that goes in stays in. I have currently implemented this with a ImmutableDictionary<int,DataItem> but I have problem with the garbage collector.
It seems to think I use lots of data which is true it as it contains 10 000-100 000 complex objects, and then it begins to think its a good idea to scan the cache very often. With blocking Generation 2. At least that's what I believe it does. "%Time in gc" is 90%+ and my application is blazing slow.
Can I somehow mark the cache as untouchable or let my app use more memory before GC thinks it should do a full collect? I have loads of free memory on the server.
Might switching to NCache or Redis for Windows (MSOpenTech) be a better solution?

You could use GC.TryStartNoGCRegion to strictly limit the times at which GC occurs. Though in line with my previous comment, I believe this is not a good approach.
Have you considered examining how the cached objects are cleaning themselves up? Perhaps when objects exceed the 4 hour ttl, cleaning them up takes too long?
Are the objects disposable? Are they finalizable? If yes to either one, whats the time cost of a Dispose or Finalize operation on an individual object? If they are Finalizable, do they need to be?

C# garbage collection

I have a business app that I have written, that effectively recurses through a directory structure looking for specific Excel files, and stores their addresses. It then loops through these files and parses them by creating a DocumentParser object for each file, this is done one at a time, and not async. The software seems to be very stable, so much so that the business would like to run it to recurse through a massive directory containing upwards of 10000 relevant Excel files.
My question is, as I am creating a new DocumentParser object each time, will the GC be effective enough to discard each of the objects when they go out of scope, ie when that Excel sheet has been parsed, or is there a way I can monitor this and where necessary manually do a GC? I've never had to deal with such large amounts of data before, generally only testing it on a maximum of 40-50 Excel files at a time.
Thanks.

The GC is a very complex piece of software. And the GC is at least the only one that knows when garbage collection is necessary. So my advice is to leave the GC on it's own.
Additionally: The GC will handle these masses objects. Perhaps you will recognize a decrease of performance. If this is a problem you can try to optimize your code. But not premature.

I would leave the GC to its business. 10,000 objects is not really much work for the GC. And it's likely the cost of the GC work will be much lower than the cost of the Excel work. So it's not worth complicating your design to tweak things for the GC. If you end up with so many files to process that your application can't finish in time, it's most likely going to be the speed of the Excel processing holding you up.
However one note which may be relevant: if the DocumentParser is using unmanaged memory in its work with the Excel file, you can use GC.Add/RemoveMemoryPressure to indicate to the GC the real added cost when opening the file. If you didn't write the DocumentParser yourself, the author may already be doing this.
The issue here is that you may have a managed object that costs something in the order of 100 bytes, which allocates a large amount of unmanaged memory when it does Excel work. The GC will have no way of knowing this, so these methods help notify the GC that there is more memory pressure than it was aware of. This may change its behaviour in how/when it decides to collect, which may lead to the application maintaining a lower memory footprint. If the application's memory usage balloons out over time, then you may start seeing some slow downs from length garbage collection and possibly paging on the machine (depending on how much memory you have). You'll want to keep an eye on its memory usage to make sure it's not leaking memory as it processes - a memory profiler may be helpful there.

You don't need to manually call the GC unless you are holding some very large resource which is not the case in your situation. The GC will tweak itself with every call and if you call it manually you will just disrupt its internal profiling data.
BTW GC can collect stuff not only when it goes out of scope but also after its last usage (i.e. while it is still in scope but the variable is not used anymore).

Yes and no - The GC is effective enough to release when it needs to, but you can't generally be sure when that is.
There is a way to force a GC collection but it's generally considered to be bad practise in production code because of the effects of forcing a stack walk when it's not required is worse then using a bit of extra memory until the GC decides it needs to free resources to allocate more objects.

Best Practice for Forcing Garbage Collection in C#

In my experience it seems that most people will tell you that it is unwise to force a garbage collection but in some cases where you are working with large objects that don't always get collected in the 0 generation but where memory is an issue, is it ok to force the collect? Is there a best practice out there for doing so?

The best practise is to not force a garbage collection.
According to MSDN:
"It is possible to force garbage
collection by calling Collect, but
most of the time, this should be
avoided because it may create
performance issues. "
However, if you can reliably test your code to confirm that calling Collect() won't have a negative impact then go ahead...
Just try to make sure objects are cleaned up when you no longer need them. If you have custom objects, look at using the "using statement" and the IDisposable interface.
This link has some good practical advice with regards to freeing up memory / garbage collection etc:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/66x5fx1b.aspx

Look at it this way - is it more efficient to throw out the kitchen garbage when the garbage can is at 10% or let it fill up before taking it out?
By not letting it fill up, you are wasting your time walking to and from the garbage bin outside. This analogous to what happens when the GC thread runs - all the managed threads are suspended while it is running. And If I am not mistaken, the GC thread can be shared among multiple AppDomains, so garbage collection affects all of them.
Of course, you might encounter a situation where you won't be adding anything to the garbage can anytime soon - say, if you're going to take a vacation. Then, it would be a good idea to throw out the trash before going out.
This MIGHT be one time that forcing a GC can help - if your program idles, the memory in use is not garbage-collected because there are no allocations.

The best practise is to not force a garbage collection in most cases. (Every system I have worked on that had forced garbage collections, had underlining problems that if solved would have removed the need to forced the garbage collection, and sped the system up greatly.)
There are a few cases when you know more about memory usage then the garbage collector does. This is unlikely to be true in a multi user application, or a service that is responding to more then one request at a time.
However in some batch type processing you do know more then the GC. E.g. consider an application that.
Is given a list of file names on the command line
Processes a single file then write the result out to a results file.
While processing the file, creates a lot of interlinked objects that can not be collected until the processing of the file have complete (e.g. a parse tree)
Does not keep much state between the files it has processed.
You may be able to make a case (after careful) testing that you should force a full garbage collection after you have process each file.
Another cases is a service that wakes up every few minutes to process some items, and does not keep any state while it’s asleep. Then forcing a full collection just before going to sleep may be worthwhile.
The only time I would consider forcing
a collection is when I know that a lot
of object had been created recently
and very few objects are currently
referenced.
I would rather have a garbage collection API when I could give it hints about this type of thing without having to force a GC my self.
See also "Rico Mariani's Performance Tidbits"

I think the example given by Rico Mariani was good: it may be appropriate to trigger a GC if there is a significant change in the application's state. For example, in a document editor it may be OK to trigger a GC when a document is closed.

There are few general guidelines in programming that are absolute. Half the time, when somebody says 'you're doing it wrong', they're just spouting a certain amount of dogma. In C, it used to be fear of things like self-modifying code or threads, in GC languages it is forcing the GC or alternatively preventing the GC from running.
As is the case with most guidelines and good rules of thumb (and good design practices), there are rare occasions where it does make sense to work around the established norm. You do have to be very sure you understand the case, that your case really requires the abrogation of common practice, and that you understand the risks and side-effects you can cause. But there are such cases.
Programming problems are widely varied and require a flexible approach. I have seen cases where it makes sense to block GC in garbage collected languages and places where it makes sense to trigger it rather than waiting for it to occur naturally. 95% of the time, either of these would be a signpost of not having approached the problem right. But 1 time in 20, there probably is a valid case to be made for it.

I've learned to not try to outsmart the garbage collection. With that said, I just stick to using using keyword when dealing with unmanaged resources like file I/O or database connections.

One case I recently encountered that required manual calls to GC.Collect() was when working with large C++ objects that were wrapped in tiny managed C++ objects, which in turn were accessed from C#.
The garbage collector never got called because the amount of managed memory used was negligible, but the amount of unmanaged memory used was huge. Manually calling Dispose() on the objects would require that I keep track of when objects are no longer needed myself, whereas calling GC.Collect() will clean up any objects that are no longer referred.....

Not sure if it is a best practice, but when working with large amounts of images in a loop (i.e. creating and disposing a lot of Graphics/Image/Bitmap objects), i regularly let the GC.Collect.
I think I read somewhere that the GC only runs when the program is (mostly) idle, and not in the middle of a intensive loop, so that could look like an area where manual GC could make sense.

I think you already listed the best practice and that is NOT to use it unless REALLY necessary. I would strongly recommend looking at your code in more detail, using profiling tools potentially if needed to answer these questions first.
Do you have something in your code that is declaring items at a larger scope than needed
Is the memory usage really too high
Compare performance before and after using GC.Collect() to see if it really helps.

Suppose your program doesn't have memory leakage, objects accumulates and cannot be GC-ed in Gen 0 because:
1) They are referenced for long time so get into Gen1 & Gen2;
2) They are large objects (>80K) so get into LOH (Large Object Heap). And LOH doesn't do compacting as in Gen0, Gen1 & Gen2.
Check the performance counter of ".NET Memory" can you can see that the 1) problem is really not a problem. Generally, every 10 Gen0 GC will trigger 1 Gen1 GC, and every 10 Gen1 GC will trigger 1 Gen2 GC. Theoretically, GC1 & GC2 can never be GC-ed if there is no pressure on GC0 (if the program memory usage is really wired). It never happens to me.
For problem 2), you can check ".NET Memory" performance counter to verify whether LOH is getting bloated. If it is really a issue to your problem, perhaps you can create a large-object-pool as this blog suggests http://blogs.msdn.com/yunjin/archive/2004/01/27/63642.aspx.

I would like to add that:
Calling GC.Collect() (+ WaitForPendingFinalizers()) is one part of the story.
As rightly mentioned by others, GC.COllect() is non-deterministic collection and is left to the discretion of the GC itself (CLR).
Even if you add a call to WaitForPendingFinalizers, it may not be deterministic.
Take the code from this msdn link and run the code with the object loop iteration as 1 or 2. You will find what non-deterministic means (set a break point in the object's destructor).
Precisely, the destructor is not called when there were just 1 (or 2) lingering objects by Wait..().[Citation reqd.]
If your code is dealing with unmanaged resources (ex: external file handles), you must implement destructors (or finalizers).
Here is an interesting example:
Note: If you have already tried the above example from MSDN, the following code is going to clear the air.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SomePublisher publisher = new SomePublisher();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
SomeSubscriber subscriber = new SomeSubscriber(publisher);
subscriber = null;
}
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine(SomeSubscriber.Count.ToString());
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class SomePublisher
{
public event EventHandler SomeEvent;
}
public class SomeSubscriber
{
public static int Count;
public SomeSubscriber(SomePublisher publisher)
{
publisher.SomeEvent += new EventHandler(publisher_SomeEvent);
}
~SomeSubscriber()
{
SomeSubscriber.Count++;
}
private void publisher_SomeEvent(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// TODO: something
string stub = "";
}
}
I suggest, first analyze what the output could be and then run and then read the reason below:
{The destructor is only implicitly called once the program ends. }
In order to deterministically clean the object, one must implement IDisposable and make an explicit call to Dispose(). That's the essence! :)

Large objects are allocated on LOH (large object heap), not on gen 0. If you're saying that they don't get garbage-collected with gen 0, you're right. I believe they are collected only when the full GC cycle (generations 0, 1 and 2) happens.
That being said, I believe on the other side GC will adjust and collect memory more aggressively when you work with large objects and the memory pressure is going up.
It is hard to say whether to collect or not and in which circumstances. I used to do GC.Collect() after disposing of dialog windows/forms with numerous controls etc. (because by the time the form and its controls end up in gen 2 due to creating many instances of business objects/loading much data - no large objects obviously), but actually didn't notice any positive or negative effects in the long term by doing so.

One more thing, triggering GC Collect explicitly may NOT improve your program's performance. It is quite possible to make it worse.
The .NET GC is well designed and tuned to be adaptive, which means it can adjust GC0/1/2 threshold according to the "habit" of your program memory usage. So, it will be adapted to your program after some time running. Once you invoke GC.Collect explicitly, the thresholds will be reset! And the .NET has to spent time to adapt to your program's "habit" again.
My suggestion is always trust .NET GC. Any memory problem surfaces, check ".NET Memory" performance counter and diagnose my own code.

Not sure if it is a best practice...
Suggestion: do not implement this or anything when unsure. Reevaluate when facts are known, then perform before/after performance tests to verify.

However, if you can reliably test your code to confirm that calling Collect() won't have a negative impact then go ahead...
IMHO, this is similar to saying "If you can prove that your program will never have any bugs in the future, then go ahead..."
In all seriousness, forcing the GC is useful for debugging/testing purposes. If you feel like you need to do it at any other times, then either you are mistaken, or your program has been built wrong. Either way, the solution is not forcing the GC...

There are some scenarios where there will definitely be very little to no negative impact on your system when forcing a garbage collection e.g. On a date roll/a scheduled time where the system is not in use.
Aside from such times you would need to test performance of your code before and after implementing the forced collect to ensure that it is actually beneficial.

I do NOT recommend manual garbage collection. I assure you that you're not disposing of large objects properly. Make use of the USING statement. Whenever you instantiate an object, be sure to DISPOSE of it when you are through using it. This sample code creates a connection with USING statements. Then it instantiates a shipping label object, uses it, and disposes of it properly.
Using con As SqlConnection = New SqlConnection(DB_CONNECTION_STRING)
con.Open()
Using command As SqlCommand = New SqlCommand(sqlStr, con)
Using reader As SqlDataReader = command.ExecuteReader()
While reader.Read()
code_here()
End While
End Using
End Using
End Using
Dim f1 As frmShippingLabel
f1 = New frmShippingLabel
f1.PrintLabel()
f1.Dispose()

How to avoid garbage collection in real time .NET application?

I'm writting a financial C# application which receive messages from the network, translate them into different object according to the message type and finaly apply the application business logic on them.
The point is that after the business logic is applied, I'm very sure I will never need this instance again. Rather than to wait for the garbage collector to free them, I'd like to explicitly "delete" them.
Is there a better way to do so in C#, should I use a pool of object to reuse always the same set of instance or is there a better strategy.
The goal being to avoid the garbage collection to use any CPU during a time critical process.

Don't delete them right away. Calling the garbage collector for each object is a bad idea. Normally you really don't want to mess with the garbage collector at all, and even time critical processes are just race conditions waiting to happen if they're that sensitive.
But if you know you'll have busy vs light load periods for your app, you might try a more general GC.Collect() when you reach a light period to encourage cleanup before the next busy period.

Look here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb384202.aspx
You can tell the garbage collector that you're doing something critical at the moment, and it will try to be nice to you.

You hit in yourself -- use a pool of objects and reuse those objects. The semantics of the calls to those object would need to be hidden behind a factory facade. You'll need to grow the pool in some pre-defined way. Perhaps double the size everytime it hits the limit -- a high water algorithm, or a fixed percentage. I'd really strongly advise you not to call GC.Collect().
When the load on your pool gets low enough you could shrink the pool and that will eventually trigger a garbage collection -- let the CLR worry about it.

Attempting to second-guess the garbage collector is generally a very bad idea. On Windows, the garbage collector is a generational one and can be relied upon to be pretty efficient. There are some noted exceptions to this general rule - the most common being the occurrence of a one-time event that you know for a fact will have caused a lot of old objects to die - once objects are promoted to Gen2 (the longest lived) they tend to hang around.
In the case you mention, you sound as though you are generating a number of short-lived objects - these will result in Gen0 collections. These happen relatively often anyway, and are the most efficient. You could avoid them by having a reusable pool of objects, if you prefer, but it is best to ascertain for certain if GC is a performance problem before taking such action - the CLR profiler is the tool for doing this.
It should be noted that the garbage collector is different on different .NET frameworks - on the compact framework (which runs on the Xbox 360 and on mobile platforms) it is a non-generational GC and as such you must be much more careful about what garbage your program generates.

Forcing a GC.Collect() is generally a bad idea, leave the GC to do what it does best. It sounds like the best solution would be to use a pool of objects that you can grow if necessary - I've used this pattern successfully.
This way you avoid not only the garbage collection but the regular allocation cost as well.
Finally, are you sure that the GC is causing you a problem? You should probably measure and prove this before implementing any perf-saving solutions - you may be causing yourself unnecessary work!

"The goal being to avoid the garbage collection to use any CPU during
a time critical process"
Q: If by time critical, you mean you're listening to some esoteric piece of hardware, and you can't afford to miss the interrupt?
A: If so then C# isn't the language to use, you want Assembler, C or C++ for that.
Q: If by time Critical, you mean while there are lots of messages in the pipe, and you don't want to let the Garbage collector slow things down?
A: If so you are worrying needlessly. By the sounds of things your objects are very short lived, this means the garbage collector will recycle them very efficiently, without any apparent lag in performance.
However, the only way to know for sure is test it, set it up to run overnight processing a constant stream of test messages, I'll be stunned if you your performance stats can spot when the GC kicks in (and even if you can spot it, I'll be even more surprised if it actually matters).

Get a good understanding and feel on how the Garbage Collector behaves, and you will understand why what you are thinking of here is not recommended. unless you really like the CLR to spend time rearranging objects in memory alot.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/bb985010.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/bb985011.aspx

How intensive is the app? I wrote an app that captures 3 sound cards (Managed DirectX, 44.1KHz, Stereo, 16-bit), in 8KB blocks, and sends 2 of the 3 streams to another computer via TCP/IP. The UI renders an audio level meter and (smooth) scrolling title/artist for each of the 3 channels. This runs on PCs with XP, 1.8GHz, 512MB, etc. The App uses about 5% of the CPU.
I stayed clear of manually calling GC methods. But I did have to tune a few things that were wasteful. I used RedGate's Ant profiler to hone in on the wasteful portions. An awesome tool!
I wanted to use a pool of pre-allocated byte arrays, but the managed DX Assembly allocates byte buffers internally, then returns that to the App. It turned out that I didn't have to.

If it is absolutely time critical then you should use a deterministic platform like C/C++. Even calling GC.Collect() will generate CPU cycles.
Your question starts off with the suggestion that you want to save memory but getting rid of objects. This is a space critical optimization. You need to decide what you really want because the GC is better at optimizing this situation than a human.

From the sound of it, it seems like you're talking about deterministic finalization (destructors in C++), which doesn't exist in C#. The closest thing that you will find in C# is the Disposable pattern. Basically you implement the IDisposable interface.
The basic pattern is this:
public class MyClass: IDisposable
{
private bool _disposed;
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose( true );
GC.SuppressFinalize( this );
}
protected virtual void Dispose( bool disposing )
{
if( _disposed )
return;
if( disposing )
{
// Dispose managed resources here
}
_disposed = true;
}
}

You could have a limited amount of instances of each type in a pool, and reuse the already done with instances. The size of the pool would depend on the amount of messages you'll be processing.

Instead of creating a new instance of an object every time you get a message, why don't you reuse objects that have already been used? This way you won't be fighting against the garbage collector and your heap memory won't be getting fragmented.**
For each message type, you can create a pool to hold the instances that are not in use. Whenever you receive a network message, you look at the message type, pull a waiting instance out of the appropriate pool and apply your business logic. After that, you put that instance of the message object back into it's pool.
You will most likely want to "lazy load" your pool with instances so your code scales easily. Therefore, your pool class will need to detect when a null instance has been pulled and fill it up before handing it out. Then when the calling code puts it back in the pool it's a real instance.
** "Object pooling is a pattern to use that allows objects to be reused rather than allocated and deallocated, which helps to prevent heap fragmentation as well as costly GC compactions."
http://geekswithblogs.net/robp/archive/2008/08/07/speedy-c-part-2-optimizing-memory-allocations---pooling-and.aspx

In theory the GC shouldn't run if your CPU is under heavy load or unless it really needs to. But if you have to, you may want to just keep all of your objects in memory, perhaps a singleton instance, and never clean them up unless you're ready. That's probably the only way to guarantee when the GC runs.