SO I already know about memory management in objective C, and I never had to know about it while programming in .net (C#). But i still have some questions about how everything is done.
-Why does the code leak in objective c if we allocate an object and not release it?
-Why doesn't this leak in C#?
-What are some advantages and disadvantages of automatic-garbage-collecting?
-Why not use autorelease on every allocated object (Objective C)?
-Is it possible to take care of the memory manually (C#)? so let's say i instantiate an object, and when I'm done i want to release it, and i don't want to wait for the garbage collector to do it?
It leaks in Objective-C because Objective-C doesn’t take any action on it. It relies on you doing all the work. It doesn’t leak in C# (more precisely, in .NET) because it employs a garbage collector which cleans up objects that are no longer used.
The main advantage of garbage collection is the above: you have far fewer memory leaks. (It’s still possible to have a memory leak, e.g. by filling a list indefinitely, but that’s harder to do accidentally.) It used to be thought that garbage collection has a disadvantage in that it could slow down the program because it keeps doing the garbage collection in the background and you have little control over it. In reality, however, the difference is negligible: there are other background tasks on your computer (e.g. device drivers) running all the time, the garbage collector doesn’t break the camel’s back either.
Auto-deallocation (as it is employed in C++ when a non-pointer variable goes out of scope) is dangerous because it opens the possibility to have a reference to it still in existence even after the object has been disposed. If your code then tries to access the object, the process goes kaboom big time.
Yes, it is possible to tell C# to release memory by invoking the garbage collector directly (GC.Collect()). However, I have yet to see a case where this is at all necessary. If you actually run out of memory, the garbage collector will already kick in automatically and free as much as it can.
Objective-C isn't a garbage-collected language, so it has no way of knowing that an object won't be used anymore unless you tell it. That's the purpose of the .NET garbage collector: it checks to see which objects can no longer be used by the program, and- at some point- gets rid of them to free up memory. There are no guarantees as to when, or if, it will ever free any given abandoned object; it's just trying to keep memory usage from going out of control.
C# can't release an object without the garbage collector. If you release an object that's still being referenced, your program is going to crash when you try to use that. Which is always the risk of manual memory management, but like all "memory-managed languages", it is trying to prevent you from making exactly that mistake. If you want to explicitly shut down an object's operation, implement the interface IDisposable for that object's type, and use the Dispose() method on that object- essentially a destructor. Be sure you're done with it, of course, and that the object will behave correctly (by throwing exceptions) if something tries to use it after it's been Dispose()d of.
Objective-C is reference-counted. When an object is out of references, it deletes itself. It's not a bad solution to the "is someone still using this object?" problem, except for data structures that refer to themselves; circular data structures will hang around forever unless carefully handled. .NET isn't a reference counter, so it will get rid of circular data structures that can't be reached from running code.
Autorelease is just a "release later", for returning a value that should self-destruct if the code that grabs it doesn't immediately want to hold onto it, as far as I understand. (I'm not an Objective-C programmer, though.) It gets around the "who releases this object?" problem for calls that return an object, without destroying it before the function is finished. It's a special use case, though, and it doesn't make sense in most other cases.
The advantage of automatic garbage collection is that you do not have to explicitly free/release your objects as you said. The disadvantage is you cannot be sure when (or even if) any given object instance will be released.
C# has other mechanisms to release other resources like files, or db connections that have to be released detirminitely. For example, using allows you to make sure that IDispose is called on an object for sure.
Garbage collected systems tend to have more memory in use at any given time than a well tuned manual implementation. Of course, you do not have memory leaks.
The quality and performance of garbage collectors can vary quite a bit which is something you may not have a lot of control over. For example, there may be a noticable lag when the GC runs. In .NET, you can call GC.Collect() to tell the GC that now would be a good time but it may or may not listen.
These days Objective-C is also garbage collected on the Mac. On the iPhone it is reference counted though so I assume that is where you are running into the issue.
On garbage collected systems, you can still run into the issue where a an object hangs onto a reference to an object that you would expect to be garbage collected. The garbage collector will not clean-up this up and so the memory is essentially leaked.
In reference counted systems, you do not have to keep track of every object that points at your object instances but you do have to specify that you want them released.
EDIT: I guess I did not say this explicitly - you cannot manually control memory allocation in C#.
Related
I need to dispose of an object so it can release everything it owns, but it doesn't implement the IDisposable so I can't use it in a using block. How can I make the garbage collector collect it?
You can force a collection with GC.Collect(). Be very careful using this, since a full collection can take some time. The best-practice is to just let the GC determine when the best time to collect is.
Does the object contain unmanaged resources but does not implement IDisposable? If so, it's a bug.
If it doesn't, it shouldn't matter if it gets released right away, the garbage collector should do the right thing.
If it "owns" anything other than memory, you need to fix the object to use IDisposable. If it's not an object you control this is something worth picking a different vendor over, because it speaks to the core of how well your vendor really understands .Net.
If it does just own memory, even a lot of it, all you have to do is make sure the object goes out of scope. Don't call GC.Collect() — it's one of those things that if you have to ask, you shouldn't do it.
You can't perform garbage collection on a single object. You could request a garbage collection by calling GC.Collect() but this will effect all objects subject to cleanup. It is also highly discouraged as it can have a negative effect on the performance of later collections.
Also, calling Dispose on an object does not clean up it's memory. It only allows the object to remove references to unmanaged resources. For example, calling Dispose on a StreamWriter closes the stream and releases the Windows file handle. The memory for the object on the managed heap does not get reclaimed until a subsequent garbage collection.
Chris Sells also discussed this on .NET Rocks. I think it was during his first appearance but the subject might have been revisited in later interviews.
http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=10
This article by Francesco Balena is also a good reference:
When and How to Use Dispose and Finalize in C#
http://www.devx.com/dotnet/Article/33167/0/page/1
Garbage collection in .NET is non deterministic, meaning you can't really control when it happens. You can suggest, but that doesn't mean it will listen.
Tells us a little bit more about the object and why you want to do this. We can make some suggestions based off of that. Code always helps. And depending on the object, there might be a Close method or something similar. Maybe the useage is to call that. If there is no Close or Dispose type of method, you probably don't want to rely on that object, as you will probably get memory leaks if in fact it does contain resourses which will need to be released.
If the object goes out of scope and it have no external references it will be collected rather fast (likely on the next collection).
BEWARE: of f ra gm enta tion in many cases, GC.Collect() or some IDisposal is not very helpful, especially for large objects (LOH is for objects ~80kb+, performs no compaction and is subject to high levels of fragmentation for many common use cases) which will then lead to out of memory (OOM) issues even with potentially hundreds of MB free. As time marches on, things get bigger, though perhaps not this size (80 something kb) for LOH relegated objects, high degrees of parallelism exasperates this issue due simply due to more objects in less time (and likely varying in size) being instantiated/released.
Array’s are the usual suspects for this problem (it’s also often hard to identify due to non-specific exceptions and assertions from the runtime, something like “high % of large object heap fragmentation” would be swell), the prognosis for code suffering from this problem is to implement an aggressive re-use strategy.
A class in Systems.Collections.Concurrent.ObjectPool from the parallel extensions beta1 samples helps (unfortunately there is not a simple ubiquitous pattern which I have seen, like maybe some attached property/extension methods?), it is simple enough to drop in or re-implement for most projects, you assign a generator Func<> and use Get/Put helper methods to re-use your previous object’s and forgo usual garbage collection. It is usually sufficient to focus on array’s and not the individual array elements.
It would be nice if .NET 4 updated all of the .ToArray() methods everywhere to include .ToArray(T target).
Getting the hang of using SOS/windbg (.loadby sos mscoreei for CLRv4) to analyze this class of issue can help. Thinking about it, the current garbage collection system is more like garbage re-cycling (using the same physical memory again), ObjectPool is analogous to garbage re-using. If anybody remembers the 3 R’s, reducing your memory use is a good idea too, for performance sakes ;)
I'm using C# but probably the same in VB.NET. I C++ I would just set a break-point on an objects destructor to know when/if it was deleted/free'd. I understand that in winforms the base class calls SupressFinalize so that form destructors are never called, so I guess I can't do it that way. Is there another method to know if an object has been garbage collected? It seems like a catch-22 because if there was you would probably need a reference to check, but by holding that reference the garbage collected will not crush it.
I've read this What strategies and tools are useful for finding memory leaks in .NET?, and I understand there are tools and/or frameworks out there to handle this "big picture" and I'm sure in a few weeks I'll be trying out several of these methods. For now I just have a really strong feeling I might have a leak related to forms not being deleted, so just want to check this one thing (and I want to know just for the sake of knowing).
I know I can watch Dispose, but I'm pretty sure Dispose can be called but still end up with the form object still being around. To test that theory I created a known-issue where I registered for a callback event in my form, then closed the form without unregistering it. Sure enough, Dispose was called (and "disposing" was true), but later when the event was fired, it still hit my break-point inside the form that was supposedly disposed already.
There are really two issues here:
As for your original question, you can use a WeakReference to monitor an object's existence without affecting its lifetime.
Your underlying question suggests that you have a misunderstanding of what garbage collection is, and how it works. The point of garbage collection is that you should never care if an object has been collected or not. Instead, you should focus on the references to the object, and if they have been reassigned or made inaccessible from rooted references. Don't worry about the instance, worry about the references to it.
The entire concept of a managed language is that you don't need to care when an object is actually garbage collected. Lots and lots of time and effort go into the GC to make sure that it doesn't collect objects that it shouldn't, that it doesn't leave objects that it should collect (when it decides to do a pass over the generation that it's in) and that all of this is done reasonably efficiently. This means that if an object consumes a large amount of managed resources and also implements IDisposable (say, a DataTable or DataSet) is disposed it is still consuming a lat of memory, and disposing of it doesn't make it get garbage collected any quicker (although you should still dispose of it to ensure any managed resources go away).
The GC is built to work best when you leave it alone and let it do it's job rather than interfering with it by trying to, for example, manually cause collections to take place. This is occasionally useful for debugging purposes or learning about your program/the language, but it virtually never belongs in a production application.
Disposing has nothing to do with garbage collection or collecting an object. Disposing is the mechanism in place for dealing with a managed object that is holding onto an unmangaed resource (or another object that is holding onto an unmangaed resource). Disposing of the object is telling it to clear up that unmanaged resource, but it has nothing to do with the garbage collector freeing the managed resources of that object. The destructor is there so that you don't free the managed resources before freeing the unmanaged resources, but it's perfectly acceptable (and in fact should always happen) that the unmanaged resources are cleaned up (via dispose) before the managed resource is freed.
Now, it is still possible, given all of this, for a program to have a memory leak, but there are a few questions you really need to be asking yourself first. How large is the leak? Is it a one off, continuous over time, every time we do function X, etc? What would it take for the program to consume so much memory as to be disruptive (either run out of memory, cause other programs to run out of memory, etc) and is that likely to occur with common or legitimate uses of the program? Usually you don't need to start asking these types of questions until you start getting out of memory exceptions, or notice that you start running out of physical memory for a program that oughtn't to. If you notice these problems then you can start looking around for objects that implement IDisposable that aren't being disposed, to see if you're holding onto references to very large objects (or collections of objects) that you no longer need, etc.
Sorry for the wall of text.
Scenario
Lets say that I've decided I really need to call GC.Collect();
What do I need to do to ensure that an object is prepared to be garbage collected appropriately before I actually call this method?
Would assigning null to all properties of the object be enough? Or just assigning null to the object itself?
If you really need to know why.....
I have a distributed application in WCF that sends a DataContract over the wire every few seconds, containing 8 Dictionaries as DataMembers.
This is a lot of data and when it comes into the Client-side interface, a whole new DataContract object is created and the memory usage of the application is growing so big that I'm getting OutOfMemory Exceptions.
Thanks
EDIT
Thanks for all the comments and answers, it seems that everyone shares the same opinion.
What I cannot understand is how I can possibly dispose correctly because the connection is open constantly.
Once I've copied the data over from the incoming object, I don't need the object anymore, so would simply implementing IDisposable on that DataContract object be enough?
My original problem is here - Distributed OutOfMemory Exceptions
As long as nothing else can see the object it is already eligible for collection; nothing more is required. The key point here is to ensure that nothing else is watching it (or at least, nothing with a longer lifetime):
is it in a field somewhere?
is it in a variable in a method that is incomplete? (an infinite loop or iterator block, perhaps)
is it in a collection somewhere?
has it subscribed to some event?
it is captured in a closure (lambda / anon-method) that is still alive?
I genuinely doubt that GC.Collect() is the answer here; if it was eligible it would have already been collected. If it isn't elgible, calling GC.Collect() certainly won't help and quite possibly will make things worse (by tying up CPU when nothing useful can be collected).
You don't generally need to do anything.
If the object is no longer referenced then it's a candidate for collection. (And, conversely, if the object is still referenced then it's not a candidate for collection, however you "prepare" it.)
You need to clean up any unmanaged resources like database connections etc.
Typically by implementing IDisposable and call Dispose.
If you have a finalizer you should call GC.SuppressFinilize.
The rest is cleaned up by the garbage collector.
Edit:
And, oh, naturally you need to release all references to your object.
But, and here is this big but. Unless you have a very very special case you don't need to call GC.Collect. You probably forgets to release some resources or references, and GC.Collect won't help you with that. Make sure you call Dispose on everything Disposable (preferably with the using-pattern).
You should probably pick up a memory profiler like Ants memory profiler and look where all your memory has gone.
If you have no more direct reference to an object, and you're running out of memory, GC should do this automatically. Do make sure you call .Dispose() on your datacontext.
Calling GC.Collect will hardly ever prevent you from getting OutOfMemory exceptions, because .NET will call GC.Collect itself when it is unable to create a new object due to OOM. There is only one scenario where I can think of and that is when you have unreferenced objects that are registered in the finalizable queue. When these objects reference many other objects it can cause a OOM. The solution to this problem is actually not to call GC.Collect but to ensure that those objects are disposed correctly (and implement the dispose pattern correctly when you created those objects).
Using GC.Collect in general
Since you are trying to get rid of a very large collection, it's totally valid to use GC.Collect(). From the Microsoft docs:
... since your application knows more about its behavior than the runtime does, you could help matters by explicitly forcing some collections. For example, it might make sense for your application to force a full collection of all generations after the user saves his data file.
"Preparing" your objects
From the excellent Performance Considerations for Run-Time Technologies in the .NET Framework (from MSDN):
If you keep a pointer to a resource around, the GC has no way of knowing if you intend to use it in the future. What this means is that all of the rules you've used in native code for explicitly freeing objects still apply, but most of the time the GC will handle everything for you.
So, to ensure it's ready for GC, Make sure that you have no references to the objects you wish to collect (e.g. in collections, events, etc...). Setting the variable to null will mean it's ready for collection before the variable goes out of scope.
Also any object which implements IDisposable should have it's Dispose() method called to clean up unmanaged resources.
Before you use GC.Collect
Since it looks like your application is a server, using the Server GC may resolve your issue. It will likely run more often and be more performant in a multi-processor scenario.
The server GC is designed for maximum throughput, and scales with very high performance.
See the Choosing Which Garbage Collector to Use within Performance Considerations for Run-Time Technologies in the .NET Framework (from MSDN):
What is the difference between C++ memory management and .NET memory management ?
In C++, you can either allocate objects with static storage so they are around for the whole program, allocate them on the stack when they are local to a function (in which case they are destroyed when the containing block exits), or allocate them on the heap (in which case they are only destroyed when you say so by explicitly calling the appropriate de-allocation function). Heap memory is allocated as raw memory with malloc and released with free, or allocated and constructed into an object with new, and then the object destroyed and the memory released with delete.
C# provides an illusion of infinite memory --- you cannot free memory explicitly, only allocate memory and construct an object with new. Instead the GC reclaims the memory for objects you can no longer access so that it can be reused for new objects.
In C++, class destructors are run when an object is destroyed. This gives each object a chance to release any associated resources whether they are more objects, or external resources such as file handles or database handles.
In C#, you must explicitly manage the release of non-memory resources by calling a release function. The using facility allows you to get the compiler to call Dispose() automatically for you, but this is still separate from the object lifetime --- the memory for the object is reclaimed when the GC system decides to (which may be never).
In C++, facilities like std::shared_ptr (or boost::shared_ptr with older compilers) allow you to pass the responsibility of destroying heap objects over to the C++ runtime by reference-counting the objects. When the last instance of shared_ptr that references a given object is destroyed, then the referenced object is destroyed too and its memory reclaimed. This avoids many of the pitfalls associated with manual memory management.
In .NET, memory is treated different than all other resources: While you have to take care of releasing all resources you need, you don't have to worry about memory.
In C++, you have to take care to release all resources you use, including dynamically allocated memory. However, C++ employs a number of tools and techniques (namely automatic scope-based allocation/deallocation and RAII) to help you with this. In a decade of writing C++ code, I have rarely ever (read: on average less than once per year) manually freed memory and if so, it was in a RAII handle class.
In C#, there is a whole lot less to worry about.
When you want to work with an object in C#, you can simply create it; and once you're done with it, you don't have to do anything else. A background worker (the Garbage Collector) will clean it up behind the scenes when it realises you're not using it any more.
In vanilla C++, there aren't any background processes running to clean up memory. This means that, any time you manually allocate memory (which is a lot of the time), you are responsible for deleting it once you're finished using it. Care must also be taken to ensure you don't delete the same thing twice.
A note on the C# side of things: This doesn't mean you can completely ignore how memory works. It's very helpful to know what happens behind the scenes. In general, though, you won't have to worry about it much.
Edit: As GMan notes below (if I'm understanding him correctly), you can deal with memory management in C++ by letting every allocation be scoped, and thus the C++ environment will look after allocation and deletion for you. In that sense, you again have to understand how C++ allocates and deletes in order to not run into troubles.
some c++ open source choosed to create their own memory gabrage collector like V8 javascript engine to avoid all problems of memory leaks.
This may likely be an issue with my inexperience using a Managed Language. The issue essentially is a loop within an objects method, which executes over about 20 seconds, throughout the duration of this loop the programs overall memory usage constantly goes up. Now all the variables within the loop which are modified are variables defined within the loops scope (ie. no class members are changed/re-allocated within the loop). After the entire method completes the excess memory is still being used.
I have absolutely no idea why/where this issue is but here are some things which may be a factor:
I use fonts within the loop, but I '.Dispose()' of them and have verified that there is no GDI leak.
I have try/catch statements which are in active use.
Objects are allocated...
So again, any ideas on where this issue may be coming from would be very helpful, I would post code but there is a lot of it. Also as mentioned above the memory is not cleaned up after the method call is done, and even after the object on which the method was invoked has gone out of scope.
Edit
I also just tried the GC.Collect() method, and nothing has changed in the overall result. I have no idea, but does this mean that the memory is not considered 'Garbage'? Again all the allocation is done within the scope of the loop so shouldn't it be considered garbage after the loop terminates. I understand the GC won't immediately get to cleaning it up, but using the GC.Collect() call should force that?
.NET uses traced garbage collection instead of the classic reference counting mechanism.
As soon as your .NET code releases an object or data, it doesn't get cleaned up instantly. It sits around for a while before being cleaned up. The garbage collector is a separate entity wandering around.
Microsoft states about the garbage collector
However, memory is not infinite.
Eventually the garbage collector must
perform a collection in order to free
some memory.
The garbage collector will come around at its own leisure based on complex algorithms. It will eventually clean everything up, if not at the end of the program lifetime. It's not recommended we poke or prod the garbage collector through System.GC members because we're supposed to assume it knows best.
Garbage collector will release objects if there is no pointer pointing to them. Be sure you don't keep not necessary objects in your variables (especially in arrays).