calloc/free: a preplexing observation

[boris]

Hi!

I'm seeking some answers about what seems to be a memory leak.

I have a loop that looks much like this:
double *largeArray = (double*) calloc();
for (...) {
printf("iterati on #...\n");
for (...) {
double *foo = (double*) calloc();
.....
.....
largeArray[someIndex] = something;
free(foo);
}
}

Though the actual code is larger, it only differs in 20+ lines of
trivial math performed on stack variables.

Clearly, foo cannot be leaking since it's being freed (and no, it
cannot be allocated outside of the loop, since its size varies each
time.

Now, when I monitor memory usage with top it grows relatively quickly
(300K per pass over the outer loop), thus there ought to be a memory
leak. At first I thought that the "largeArray " was being optimized not
to calloc all at once, but rather on demand, page by page (which would
be bizzarre) but now I believe that might not be the case since the
"largeArray " is about 4000*4000 of double which should be about 16MB -
and I see usage of > 100MB after a few hundred iterations.

I'm using gcc 3.2.2 on i*86 Linux.
Any guesses would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Boris

[j]

<bo***@borislan d.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ c13g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com.. .

Hi!

I'm seeking some answers about what seems to be a memory leak.

I have a loop that looks much like this:
double *largeArray = (double*) calloc();
for (...) {
printf("iterati on #...\n");
for (...) {
double *foo = (double*) calloc();
....
....
largeArray[someIndex] = something;
free(foo);
}
}

Though the actual code is larger, it only differs in 20+ lines of
trivial math performed on stack variables.

Clearly, foo cannot be leaking since it's being freed (and no, it
cannot be allocated outside of the loop, since its size varies each
time.

Now, when I monitor memory usage with top it grows relatively quickly
(300K per pass over the outer loop), thus there ought to be a memory
leak. At first I thought that the "largeArray " was being optimized not
to calloc all at once, but rather on demand, page by page (which would
be bizzarre) but now I believe that might not be the case since the
"largeArray " is about 4000*4000 of double which should be about 16MB -
and I see usage of > 100MB after a few hundred iterations.

I'm using gcc 3.2.2 on i*86 Linux.
Any guesses would be appreciated.

I really do not see an issue with the code you have provided.
(Other than casting where unnecessary). It is too incomplete.
Can you not provide all of it? If not, I would recommend the
use of valgrind here. But that is off-topic for this newsgroup.

--
j

[Richard Tobin]

In article <11************ **********@c13g 2000cwb.googleg roups.com>,
<bo***@borislan d.com> wrote:

"largeArray " is about 4000*4000 of double which should be about 16MB -

4000*4000 doubles is 16M * sizeof(double), which is 128MB if you have
8-byte doubles.

-- Richard

[Clark S. Cox III]

On 2005-01-31 12:18:44 -0500, bo***@borisland .com said:

Hi!

I'm seeking some answers about what seems to be a memory leak.
[snip]
... since the
"largeArray " is about 4000*4000 of double which should be about 16MB -
and I see usage of > 100MB after a few hundred iterations.

Do the math again:

4,000 * 4,000
= 16,000,000

If sizeof(double) is 8 then:

8B * 16,000,000
= 128,000,000B
≈ 122 MB

So your usage of > 100MB seems to be right in line with what should be
expected.

--
Clark S. Cox, III
cl*******@gmail .com

[boris]

Right-O. I'm an idiot: >100MB is exactly the right space usage.
However, why is it not all allocated with the first calloc of
largeArray - why do I see 'top' report ever-growing usage? This is
where I would probably want to use -fprefetch-loop-arrays, which is not
supported on my architecture according to gcc :)

As for providing more code, I could - but the rest of it is just junk -
this is all of the relevant code.

Boris

bo***@borisland .com wrote:

Hi!

I'm seeking some answers about what seems to be a memory leak.

I have a loop that looks much like this:
double *largeArray = (double*) calloc();
for (...) {
printf("iterati on #...\n");
for (...) {
double *foo = (double*) calloc();
....
....
largeArray[someIndex] = something;
free(foo);
}
}

Though the actual code is larger, it only differs in 20+ lines of
trivial math performed on stack variables.

Clearly, foo cannot be leaking since it's being freed (and no, it
cannot be allocated outside of the loop, since its size varies each
time.

Now, when I monitor memory usage with top it grows relatively quickly
(300K per pass over the outer loop), thus there ought to be a memory
leak. At first I thought that the "largeArray " was being optimized not to calloc all at once, but rather on demand, page by page (which would be bizzarre) but now I believe that might not be the case since the
"largeArray " is about 4000*4000 of double which should be about 16MB - and I see usage of > 100MB after a few hundred iterations.

I'm using gcc 3.2.2 on i*86 Linux.
Any guesses would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Boris

[Michael Mair]

bo***@borisland .com wrote:

Right-O. I'm an idiot: >100MB is exactly the right space usage.
However, why is it not all allocated with the first calloc of
largeArray - why do I see 'top' report ever-growing usage? This is
where I would probably want to use -fprefetch-loop-arrays, which is not
supported on my architecture according to gcc :)

As for providing more code, I could - but the rest of it is just junk -
this is all of the relevant code.
But it will not work when pasted into some sort of main() function.
Boris

bo***@borisland .com wrote:

Hi!

I'm seeking some answers about what seems to be a memory leak.

I have a loop that looks much like this: #include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>

int main (void)
{double *largeArray = (double*) calloc(); how much are you calloc()ing.for (...) { where are you looping
printf("itera tion #...\n");
for (...) { dito
double *foo = (double*) calloc(); how much are you calloc()ing....
....
largeArray[someIndex] = something; where are someindex and something declared/initialized
free(foo);
}
} where is largeArray free()d

return 0;
}

Now, give us that stuff requested or create a minimal example --
then we can help you.

Note that calloc() does not necessarily make sense for doubles

Please do not top-post.
Cheers
Michael
Though the actual code is larger, it only differs in 20+ lines of
trivial math performed on stack variables.

Clearly, foo cannot be leaking since it's being freed (and no, it
cannot be allocated outside of the loop, since its size varies each
time.

Now, when I monitor memory usage with top it grows relatively quickly
(300K per pass over the outer loop), thus there ought to be a memory
leak. At first I thought that the "largeArray " was being optimized

not

to calloc all at once, but rather on demand, page by page (which

would

be bizzarre) but now I believe that might not be the case since the
"largeArray " is about 4000*4000 of double which should be about 16MB

-

and I see usage of > 100MB after a few hundred iterations.

I'm using gcc 3.2.2 on i*86 Linux.
Any guesses would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Boris

--
E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.

[Keith Thompson]

bo***@borisland .com writes:

I'm seeking some answers about what seems to be a memory leak.

I have a loop that looks much like this:
double *largeArray = (double*) calloc();
for (...) {
printf("iterati on #...\n");
for (...) {
double *foo = (double*) calloc();
....
....
largeArray[someIndex] = something;
free(foo);
}
}

Though the actual code is larger, it only differs in 20+ lines of
trivial math performed on stack variables.

Clearly, foo cannot be leaking since it's being freed (and no, it
cannot be allocated outside of the loop, since its size varies each
time.

Now, when I monitor memory usage with top it grows relatively quickly
(300K per pass over the outer loop), thus there ought to be a memory
leak. At first I thought that the "largeArray " was being optimized not
to calloc all at once, but rather on demand, page by page (which would
be bizzarre) but now I believe that might not be the case since the
"largeArray " is about 4000*4000 of double which should be about 16MB -
and I see usage of > 100MB after a few hundred iterations.

Apart from your miscalculation of the size allocated for largeArray,
there's no guarantee that free() gives memory back to the operating
system. Very likely it stays within your program and becomes
available for further allocation. You don't give us a clue about what
arguments you're giving to calloc(), but it's possible that you're
fragmenting the heap and making it difficult for the system to
re-allocate the memory you've freed.

I would probably add some printf() statements to log all the calls to
calloc() and free(). For example:

double *foo = calloc(somethin g, something_else) ;
/*
* don't cast the result of malloc() or calloc().
*/
printf("foo = calloc("%lu, %lu) --> [%p]\n",
(unsigned long)something,
(unsigned long)something_ else,
(void*)foo);
...
printf("free(fo o), foo=[%p]\n", (void*)foo);
free(foo);

Analyze the results and make sure you're freeing everything you
allocate. If not, there's your problem; if so, the displayed
addresses may tell you something, or there may be some system-specific
way to trace the internal behavior of calloc() and free().

Incidentally, it's not safe to assume that calloc() will set all the
doubles in your allocated array to 0.0. It sets the allocated memory
to all-bits-zero. This is often the representation of 0.0, but the
language doesn't guarantee it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Old Wolf]

bo***@borisland .com wrote:

Right-O. I'm an idiot: >100MB is exactly the right space usage.
However, why is it not all allocated with the first calloc of
largeArray - why do I see 'top' report ever-growing usage? This is
where I would probably want to use -fprefetch-loop-arrays, which is not supported on my architecture according to gcc :)

Probably your operating system is doing 'lazy allocation'. It will
allocate you an address space but not actually claim that memory yet.

Then when you try and access memory in the space you have been
given, it will go and actually allocate that memory.

If there is not actually any memory available then it will die
in a screaming heap, or start swapping endlessly.

I think the point of lazy allocation is so that if a programmer
is lazy and just mallocs a huge chunk at the start, then other
applications do not need to suffer the effects of having not
much memory available.

[Keith Thompson]

"Old Wolf" <ol*****@inspir e.net.nz> writes:

bo***@borisland .com wrote:

Right-O. I'm an idiot: >100MB is exactly the right space usage.
However, why is it not all allocated with the first calloc of
largeArray - why do I see 'top' report ever-growing usage? This is
where I would probably want to use -fprefetch-loop-arrays, which is
not supported on my architecture according to gcc :)

Probably your operating system is doing 'lazy allocation'. It will
allocate you an address space but not actually claim that memory yet.

Then when you try and access memory in the space you have been
given, it will go and actually allocate that memory.

If there is not actually any memory available then it will die
in a screaming heap, or start swapping endlessly.

I think the point of lazy allocation is so that if a programmer
is lazy and just mallocs a huge chunk at the start, then other
applications do not need to suffer the effects of having not
much memory available.

It's pretty clear that lazy allocation is non-conforming. A program
should be able to determine whether enough memory is available when it
attempts to allocate it; that's why malloc() provides a simple and
clear mechanism for reporting failure. There's no way a program can
fail gracefully if the OS randomly kills it when it tries to access
memory it thinks it's already allocated.

The OP was using calloc(), which zeros the allocated memory, but
perhaps the system simulates that (so that the memory which springs
into existence when it's accessed looks like it's already filled with
zeros).

If your system does lazy allocation, one way to make it act as if it
were more nearly conforming would be to fill the allocated memory
with, say, 0xff bytes immediately after allocating it. That still
won't let it fail gracefully, but at least the failure will occur
sooner rather than later.

An experiment the OP might try is to fill the allocated memory with
some non-zero value immediately after calloc(), then fill it with
zeros again. Obviously this is going to slow things down (so you
won't want to do this in your production version), but it could be
useful to see whether this affects the memory behavior.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Christian Bau]

In article <ln************ @nuthaus.mib.or g>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:

An experiment the OP might try is to fill the allocated memory with
some non-zero value immediately after calloc(), then fill it with
zeros again. Obviously this is going to slow things down (so you
won't want to do this in your production version), but it could be
useful to see whether this affects the memory behavior.

I have seen exactly this method being used in serious production code -
a function "my_malloc ()" with the same arguments as malloc, that would
call malloc (), install a signal handler, fill the malloc ()'d pointer
with some data, and finally return the pointer. If anything went wrong
while filling the allocated memory, the signal handler would stop the
signal from propagating; in that case the pointer was free()d and the
function returned NULL. Truly horrible code to attempt to get a
conforming implementation.