I would like to have automatic memory disposal in my C++ project.
I don't mind to have some additional conventions in order to obtain this automatic memory disposal - to be specific, I don't mind to have some special coding on creating new object instances (but of course, not anything more as it defeats the purpose).
After some readings on many useful discussions in stackoverflow, I found out that "smart pointers" are referred to the most (along with some reference of third-party c++ garbage collectors).
With only some "textbook" C++ knowledge equipped, I believe that the C++ GCs' complexities make them doesn't worth to be used, in my case.
On the other hand, I have a .NET/Java background, and would like to leverage this experience on C++ too. I'm accustomed to creating object instances and pass them to other classes/functions (I believe it is some bread-and-butter stuff in C++ too).
So, is smart pointers/shared_ptr/boost what I am looking for?
(note that for memory acquiring I mean doing a MyClass* var = new MyClass(), not malloc().)
Some specific background:
Actually what I exactly am trying to do is to write some library functions which can be used in both C++ projects and iPhone projects (note that these are some purely logical business classes, so there should be no portability issues). Although I believe it is not an area that requires high performance (non-game app of iPhone), I have some concerns on resource usage.
Is there any issue in making use of smart pointers in this situation? Are there any better alternatives?
Consider reference counting? Create a base class that keeps a count of how often it is referenced, and deletes itself when that reference count falls to zero.
class RefCounter
{
public:
RefCounter() : mRefCount(1) { }
virtual ~RefCounter() { }
void retain() { mRefCounter++; }
void release() {
if(mRefCount) mRefCount--;
if(!mRefCount) delete this;
}
protected:
unsigned int mRefCounter;
};
Any referring object that needs the instance would call it's retain() function, and when done, it would call release(). The last object to call release would cause the instance to delete itself. You have to be careful to balance the retains and releases, but this technique is essentially how GC works except that GC implementations hide this reference counting from you.
I learned C++ before automatic GC became all the rage and I've never really warmed to the concept, feeling much more secure knowing exactly when and where each byte of memory was allocated and freed. But that's just me.
Related
With the Xcode Profiler I have just spotted a not really necessary memory peak on JSON decoding. Apparently it's a known issue and I should wrap the call in an autoreleasepool which helped:
//extension..
var jsonData: Data? {
return autoreleasepool{ try? JSONSerialization.data(withJSONObject: self, options: []) }
}
I found another few big chunks of allocations that were not really needed so I applied my newly-learned trick to other code as well, such as the following:
var protoArray = [Proto_Bit]()
for bit in data {
autoreleasepool{
if let str = bit.toJSONString() {
if let proto = try? Proto_Bit(jsonString: str) {
protoArray.append(proto)
}
}
}
}
Now, before I wrap every single instruction of my code (or at least wherever I see fit) in this autoreleasepool thing, I would like to ask if there are any risks or drawbacks associated to it.
With these two wraps I was able to reduce my peak memory consumption from 500mb to 170mb. I am aware that Swift also does these kinds of things behind the scenes and probably has some guards in place however I would rather be safe than sorry.
does autoreleasepool come with a CPU overhead? If it is 5% I would be okay with that since it sounds like a good tradeoff, if it's more I would have to investigate
can I mess up anything using autoreleasepool? Null pointers, thread locking etc. since the block structure looks a bit scary.. or is this just telling the hardware "at the end of the bracket clean up and close the door behind you" without affecting other objects?
Autorelease Pools are a mechanism which comes from Objective-C for helping automate memory management and ensure that objects and resources are released "eventually", where that "eventually" comes when the pool is drained. i.e., an autorelease pool, once created on a thread, captures (retains) all objects which are -autoreleaseed while the pool is active — when the pool is drained, all of those objects are released. (Note that this is a Foundation feature in conjunction with the Objective-C runtime, and is not directly integrated with hardware: it's way, way higher-level than that.)
As a short-hand for managing autorelease pools directly (and avoiding creating NSAutoreleasePool instances directly), Objective-C introduced the #autoreleasepool language keyword, which effectively creates an autorelease pool at the beginning of the scope, and drains it at the end:
#autoreleasepool /* create an autorelease pool to capture autoreleased objects */ {
// ... do stuff ...
} /* release the autoreleasepool, and all objects that were in it */
Introducing autorelease pools manually in this way grants you more control over when autoreleased objects are effectively cleaned up: if you know that a block of code creates many autoreleased objects that really don't need to outlive that block of code, that may be a good candidate for wrapping up in an #autoreleasepool.
Autorelease pools pre-date ARC, which automates reference counting in a deterministic way, and its introduction made autorelease pools became largely unnecessary in most code: if an object can be deterministically retained and released, there's no need to rely on autoreleasing it "at some point". (And in fact, along with regular memory management calls like -retain and -release themselves, ARC will not allow you to call -autorelease on objects directly either.)
Swift, following the ARC memory management model, also does not rely on autoreleasing objects — all objects are deterministically released after their last usage. However: Swift does still need to interoperate with Objective-C code, and notable, not all Objective-C code (including a lot of code in, e.g., Foundation) uses ARC. Many internal Apple frameworks still use Objective-C's manual memory management, and thus still rely on autoreleased objects.
On platforms where Swift might need to interoperate with Objective-C code, no work needs to be explicitly done in order to allow autoreleased objects to eventually be released: every Swift application on Darwin platforms has at least one implicit autorelease pool at the root of the process which captures autoreleased objects. However, as you note: this "eventual" release of Objective-C objects might keep memory usage high until the pool is drained. To help alleviate that high memory usage, Swift has autoreleasepool { ... } (matching Objective-C's #autoreleasepool { ... }), which allows you to explicitly and eagerly capture those autoreleased objects, and free them at the end of the scope.
To answer your questions directly, but in reverse order:
Can I mess up anything using autoreleasepool? For correctly-written code, no. All you're doing is helping the Objective-C runtime clean up these objects a little bit earlier than it would otherwise. And it's critical to note: the objects will only be released by the pool — if their retain count is still positive after the pool releases them, they must still be in use somewhere, and will not be deallocated until that other owner holding on to the object also releases them.
Is it possible that the introduction of an autoreleasepool will cause some unexpected behavior to occur which didn't before? Absolutely. Incorrectly-written code could have accidentally worked due to the fact that an object was incidentally kept alive long enough to prevent unintentional behavior from occurring — and releasing the object sooner might trigger it. But, this is both unlikely (given the miniscule amount of actually manual memory management outside of Apple frameworks) and not something you can rely on: if the code misbehaves inside of a newly-introduced autoreleasepool, it wasn't correct to begin with, and could have backfired on you some other way.
Does autoreleasepool come with a CPU overhead? Yes, and it is likely vanishingly small compared to the actual work an application performs. But, that doesn't mean that sprinkling autoreleasepool all over the place will be useful:
Given the decreasing amount of autoreleased objects in a Swift project as increasing amounts of code transition away from Objective-C, it's becoming rarer to see large numbers of autoreleased objects which need to be eagerly cleaned up. You could sprinkle autoreleasepools everywhere, but it's entirely possible that those pools will be entirely empty, with nothing to clean up
autoreleasepools don't affect native Swift allocations: only Objective-C objects can be autoreleased, which means that for a good portion of Swift code, autoreleasepools are entirely wasted
So, when should you use autoreleasepools?
When you're working with code coming from Objective-C, which
You've measured to show that is contributing to high memory usage thanks to autoreleased objects, which
You've also measured are cleaned up appropriately by the introduction of an autoreleasepool
In other words, exactly what you've done here in your question. So, kudos.
However, try to avoid cargo-culting the insertion of autoreleasepools all over the place: it's highly unlikely to be effective without actual measurements and understanding what might be going on.
[An aside: how do you know when objects/code might be coming from Objective-C? You can't, very easily. A good rule of thumb is that many Apple frameworks are still written in Objective-C under the hood, or may at some layer return an Objective-C object bridged (or not) to Swift — so they may be a likely culprit to investigate if you've measured something actionable. 3rd-party libraries are also much less likely to contain Objective-C these days, but you may also have source access to them to confirm.]
Another note about optimizations and autoreleasepools: in general, you should not typically expect a Release configuration of a build to behave differently with regard to autoreleased objects as opposed to a Debug configuration.
Unlike ARC code (both in Swift and in Objective-C), where the compiler can insert memory management optimizations for code at compile time, autorelease pools are a runtime feature, and since any retain will necessarily keep an object instance alive, even a single insertion of an object into an autorelease pool will keep it alive until it is disposed of at runtime. So, even if the compiler can aggressively optimize the specific locations of retains and releases for most objects in a Release configurations, there's nothing to be done for an object that's autoreleased.
(Well, the ARC optimizer can do some amount of optimization around autoreleasing objects if it has enough visibility into all of the code using the object, the context of the autorelease pools it belongs to, etc., but this is usually very limited because the scope in which the object was originally -autoreleased is usually far from the scope in which the autorelease pool lives, by definition [otherwise it would be a candidate for regular memory management].)
When implementing algorithms and other things while trying to maintain reusability and separation patterns, I regularly get stuck in situations like this:
I communicate back and forth with an delegate while traversing a big graph of objects. My concern is how much all this messaging hurts, or how much I must care about Objective-C messaging overhead.
The alternative is to not separate anything and always put the individual code right into the algorithm like for example this graph traverser. But this would be nasty to maintain later and is not reusable.
So: Just to get an idea of how bad it really is: How many Objective-C messages can be sent in one second, on an iPhone 4?
Sure I could write a test but I don't want to get it biased by making every message increment a variable.
There's not really a constant number to be had. What if the phone is checking email in the background, or you have a background thread doing IO work?
The approach to take with things like this is, just do the simple thing first. Call delegates as you would, and see if performance is OK.
If it's not, then figure out how to improve things. If messaging is the overhead you could replace it with a plan C function call.
Taking the question implicitly to be "at what point do you sacrifice good design patterns for speed?", I'll add that you can eliminate many of the Objective-C costs while keeping most of the benefits of good design.
Objective-C's dynamic dispatch consults a table of some sort to map Objective-C selectors to the C-level implementations of those methods. It then performs the C function call, or drops back onto one of the backup mechanisms (eg, forwarding targets) and/or ends up throwing an exception if no such call exists. In situations where you've effectively got:
int c = 1000000;
while(c--)
{
[delegate something]; // one dynamic dispatch per loop iteration
}
(which is ridiculously artificial, but you get the point), you can instead perform:
int c = 1000000;
IMP methodToCall = [delegate methodForSelector:#selector(something)];
while(c--)
{
methodToCall(delegate, #selector(something));
// one C function call per loop iteration, and
// delegate probably doesn't know the difference
}
What you've done there is taken the dynamic part of the dispatch — the C function lookup — outside the inner loop. So you've lost many dynamic benefits. 'delegate' can't method swizzle during the loop, with the side effect that you've potentially broken key-value observing, and all of the backup mechanisms won't work. But what you've managed to do is pull the dynamic stuff out of the loop.
Since it's ugly and defeats many of the Objective-C mechanisms, I'd consider this bad practice in the general case. The main place I'd recommend it is when you have a tightly constrained class or set of classes hidden somewhere behind the facade pattern (so, you know in advance exactly who will communicate with whom and under what circumstances) and you're able to prove definitively that dynamic dispatch is costing you significantly.
For full details of the inner workings at the C level, see the Objective-C Runtime Reference. You can then cross-check that against the NSObject class reference to see where convenience methods are provided for getting some bits of information (such as the IMP I use in the example).
Normally I'm well aware that a consideration like this is premature optimization. Right now I have some event handlers being attached inside a foreach loop. I am wondering if this style might be prone to leaks or inefficient memory use due to closures being created. Is there any validity to this thinking?
closures only apply if your event handlers are anonymous methods (including, but not limited to, lambda expressions). If this is the case, you might have a problem. But it should be okay as long as you remove these event handlers at the proper time.
If you are talking about something like this:
foreach (var item in items)
{
item.SomeEvent += delegate {
// do something
};
}
Then the answer is the performance is not noticeable (in my Monotouch experience anyway) as the compiler simply creates a class with a method the same way the Microsoft C# compiler.
The biggest performance bottlenecks I've encountered in Monotouch have been SQLite related, and parsing DateTimes. Everything else, including complex LINQ statements fly on the 3GS - I'm not sure what magic is performed by the AOT compiler but I would only worry if it creeps up into 0.5 or more seconds to perform the task.
I've been making some progress with audio programming for iPhone. Now I'm doing some performance tuning, trying to see if I can squeeze more out of this little machine. Running Shark, I see that a significant part of my cpu power (16%) is getting eaten up by objc_msgSend. I understand I can speed this up somewhat by storing pointers to functions (IMP) rather than calling them using [object message] notation. But if I'm going to go through all this trouble, I wonder if I might just be better off using C++.
Any thoughts on this?
Objective C is absolutely fast enough for DSP/audio programming, because Objective C is a superset of C. You don't need to (and shouldn't) make everything a message. Where performance is critical, use plain C function calls (or use inline assembly, if there are hardware features you can leverage that way). Where performance isn't critical, and your application can benefit from the features of message indirection, use the square brackets.
The Accelerate framework on OS X, for example, is a great high-performance Objective C library. It only uses standard C99 function calls, and you can call them from Objective C code without any wrapping or indirection.
The problem with Objective-C and functions like DSP is not speed per se but rather the uncertainty of when the inevitable bottlenecks will occur.
All languages have bottlenecks but in static linked languages like C++ you can better predict when and where in the code they will occur. In the case of Objective-C's runtime coupling, the time it takes to find the appropriate object, the time it takes to send a message is not necessary slow but it is variable and unpredictable. Objective-C's flexibility in UI, data management and reuse work against it in the case of tightly timed task.
Most audio processing in the Apple API is done in C or C++ because of the need to nail down the time it takes code to execute. However, its easy to mix Objective-C, C and C++ in the same app. This allows you to pick the best language for the immediate task at hand.
Is Objective C fast enough for DSP/audio programming
Real Time Rendering
Definitely Not. The Objective-C runtime and its libraries are simply not designed for the demands of real time audio rendering. The fact is, it's virtually impossible to guarantee that using ObjC runtime or libraries such as Foundation (or even CoreFoundation) will not result your renderer missing its deadline.
The common case is a lock -- even a simple heap allocation (malloc, new/new[], [[NSObject alloc] init]) will likely require a lock.
To use ObjC is to utilize libraries and a runtime which assume locks are acceptable at any point within their execution. The lock can suspend execution of your render thread (e.g. during your render callback) while waiting to acquire the lock. Then you can miss your render deadline because your render thread is held up, ultimately resulting in dropouts/glitches.
Ask a pro audio plugin developer: they will tell you that blocking within the realtime render domain is forbidden. You cannot e.g. run to the filesystem or create heap allocations because you have no practical upper bound regarding the time it will take to finish.
Here's a nice introduction: http://www.rossbencina.com/code/real-time-audio-programming-101-time-waits-for-nothing
Offline Rendering
Yes, it would be acceptably fast in most scenarios for high level messaging. At the lower levels, I recommend against using ObjC because it would be wasteful -- it could take many, many times longer to render if ObjC messaging used at that level (compared to a C or C++ implementation).
See also: Will my iPhone app take a performance hit if I use Objective-C for low level code?
objc_msgSend is just a utility.
The cost of sending a message is not just the cost of sending the message.
It is the cost of doing everything that the message initiates.
(Just like the true cost of a function call is its inclusive cost, including I/O if there is any.)
What you need to know is where are the time-dominant messages coming from and going to and why.
Stack samples will tell you which routines / methods are being called so often that you should figure out how to call them more efficiently.
You may find that you're calling them more than you have to.
Especially if you find that many of the calls are for creating and deleting data structure, you can probably find better ways to do that.
I am trying to determine if an object is valid. The program has (at least) two threads and one of the threads might invalidate the object by removing it from an NSMutableArray. I need the other thread to check either its existence or validity before acting on it.
You can't. The only way to check if the memory your object pointer has still represents a valid object is to dereference it, but dereferencing an "invalid" object (by which I assume you mean one that has been dealloced) will result in either accessing the memory of a new object that has been allocated in the same location, garbage data that may or may not be identical to a normal object, or an unmapped memory page that will result in an immediate EXEC_BAD_ACCESS.
Any time you are holding a reference to an object you might use in the future you must retain it. If you don't you have not shown any interest or ownership in the object and the system may throw it away at any time.
Using objective C accessors and properties instead of directly setting ivars and using retain/release simplifies doing the right thing quite a bit.
Multi-threaded programming is hard. Hard does not begin to capture how difficult it is. This is the kind of hard in which a general, useable, 'reasonably qualified' way of deterministically adding two different numbers together that are being mutated and shared by multiple threads in bounded time without the use of any special assistance from the CPU in the form of atomic instructions would be a major breakthrough and the thesis of your PhD. A deity of your choice would publicly thank you for your contribution to humanity. Just for adding two numbers together. Actually, multi-threaded programming is even harder than that.
Take a look at: Technical Note TN2059
Using collection classes safely with multithreaded applications. It covers this topic in general, and outlines some of the non-obvious pitfalls that await you.
You say
I need the other thread to check either its existence or validity before acting on it.
The easiest way is to hold on to the index of the object in the NSMutableArray and then do the following
if( myObject == [myArray objectAtIndex: myObjectIndex] ) {
// everything is good !
}
else {
// my object is not what I think it is anymore
}
There are clear problem with this approach however
insertion, and deletion will stuff you up
The approach is not thread safe since the array can be changed while you are reading it
I really recomend using a different way to share this array between the two threads. Does it have to be mutable? If it doesn't then make it immutable and then you no longer have to worry about the threading issues.
If it does, then you really have to reconsider your approach. Hopefully someone can give an cocoa way of doing this in a thread safe way as I don't have the experience.