digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 2927] New: Ignore Interior GC attribute
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (22/22) May 03 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) May 03 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) May 03 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (42/42) May 03 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) May 03 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Nov 02 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Nov 03 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (23/27) Nov 03 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (20/20) Nov 03 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Nov 04 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Aug 27 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
Summary: Ignore Interior GC attribute
Product: D
Version: 2.029
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
ReportedBy: dsimcha yahoo.com
A very easy, but often very effective, way to deal with false pointer issues in
the GC, would be to include an attribute in GC.BlkAttr that allows for interior
pointers to a block of memory to be ignored and only pointers to the root to be
able to keep the object alive.
An example use case is when a class or struct object stores a large array that
never escapes the scope of the object. The array will therefore always have a
pointer to its root if it is referenced. Counting only pointers to the root as
references to the object would drastically lessen the probability that large
arrays are kept around due to false pointers.
--
May 03 2009
d-bugmail puremagic.com http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927 Created an attachment (id=344) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=344&action=view) Adds interior pointer ignoring feature to gcx.d --
May 03 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927 Created an attachment (id=345) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=345&action=view) Makes core.memory interface with modified gcx.d. --
May 03 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
I've submitted patches that implement this feature. If the BlkAttr.NO_INTERIOR
flag is set, then only pointers to the base address of a GC-allocated block can
keep that block alive. Here's a small test program demonstrating how this
works:
import std.stdio, core.memory;
void main() {
// Test for < PAGESIZE
test(32, cast(GC.BlkAttr) 0, 0);
test(32, cast(GC.BlkAttr) 0, 1);
test(32, GC.BlkAttr.NO_INTERIOR, 0);
test(32, GC.BlkAttr.NO_INTERIOR, 1);
// Test for > PAGESIZE
enum megabyte = 1024 * 1024;
test(megabyte, cast(GC.BlkAttr) 0, 0);
test(megabyte, cast(GC.BlkAttr) 0, 1);
test(megabyte, GC.BlkAttr.NO_INTERIOR, 0);
test(megabyte, GC.BlkAttr.NO_INTERIOR, 1);
}
// In this test case, we expect the GC to allocate the same address more than
// once only when NO_INTERIOR is set and we store an interior pointer in ptrs
// instead of a pointer to the root address.
void test(size_t size, GC.BlkAttr attr, uint toAdd) {
uint[] oldPtrs = new uint[10];
void*[10] ptrs;
foreach(i; 0..10) {
auto ptr = GC.malloc(size, attr);
ptrs[i] = ptr + toAdd;
foreach(oldPtr; oldPtrs) {
if(oldPtr == cast(uint) ptr) {
writeln("GC re-allocated address ", oldPtr, ". (Parameters:
",
size, " ", attr, " ", toAdd, ")");
return;
}
}
oldPtrs[i] = cast(uint) ptr;
GC.collect();
}
}
--
May 03 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
dsimcha yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
obsolete| |
Created an attachment (id=347)
--> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=347&action=view)
Fix a few things I missed in the first patch.
--
May 03 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927 23:44:29 PST --- The problem is, I don't see how an interior pointer could be prevented. You can always take a slice to the interior array, so there is an interior pointer. I think it's a big risk to assume or tell the user not to slice the array, because they will, and then will suffer from mysterious memory errors. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 02 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927 I know this isn't completely safe, but neither is any alternative, such as using the C heap, using the GC but deleting stuff manually, or having your program leak memory like crazy. In some cases, it may be the least bad solution. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 03 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |llucax gmail.com
PST ---
The problem is, I don't see how an interior pointer could be prevented. You can
always take a slice to the interior array, so there is an interior pointer. I
think it's a big risk to assume or tell the user not to slice the array,
because they will, and then will suffer from mysterious memory errors.
But this shouldn't be set on any array, only on some private data where you can
ensure that no interior pointers exist.
Example:
----
class A
{
private void* losts_of_pointers;
this() {
lots_of_pointers = new void*[100_000_000];
}
}
It would be nice to be able to tell the GC "trust me, nobody will ever store an
interior pointer to this".
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 03 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
Yes, and the killer use case would be associative arrays, which leak memory
like a seive. They are currently (and probably quite often) implemented as
something like:
struct Node {
Node* left;
Node* right;
hash_t hash;
K key;
V value;
}
struct AA {
Node*[] table; // Can be huge, will always have a pointer to head as
// long as the AA is alive, fully owned by the AA
// instance. Perfect candidate for NO_INTERIOR.
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 03 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927 Now that we have the concept of sealed containers, I think it's time to reconsider this patch. If necessary I'll redo it so it works with the current GC. One of the advantages of sealed containers is that, in some cases, they could safely use ignore interior on their internal data structures. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 04 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2927
David Simcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
---
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/commit/41e84c021f56171cf2993bc479c6498686cc2d2a
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 27 2011