Related
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm working on a project in Go with OpenGL and have code to load an image file via the go/image library. This function leaves no permanent pointers and then I leave scope of the function. I would hope this memory gets cleared on the next GC cycle, but it does not appear to. I'm hoping someone who understands go a little better can help me see why the image isn't being cleared.
Gist of the code: https://gist.github.com/gjh33/62a75ccde6a7d849311804d31d7ee9ff
When not calling this method, memory footprint is 17mb, when calling this method it is 40mb. At no point is this memory GC'd even after waiting 5 minutes.
Some things to keep in mind if you haven't worked with openGL in go:
The converstions to unsafe pointers(Line 41) happen via: https://github.com/go-gl/gl/blob/master/v3.2-core/gl/conversions.go
I'm using go-gl v3.2-core
If you need more information or context, just ask
when I leave scope of the function, I would hope this memory gets cleared
This is a chief misconception: Go is a garbage-collected language, and this means the memory is only freed during so-called garbage collections, which happen periodically
and are not in any way triggered by variables in the code being executed getting out of scope.
It suffices to say that in the GC algorithm Go implements, each scan consists of two consecutive phases: scanning and sweeping.
During the scan phase, all the live objects are traversed (via pointers they maintain to each other, if any, and those which are unreachable via the stacks of the running goroutines and global variables are marked for freeing which happens during the sweep phase.
The Go runtime implements a quite sophisticated "estimator" which tries to deduce at which target heap size to start the next GC session in order to strike a balance between the heap usage and the CPU cost paid for performing a GC session.
This means two things:
In Go, the fact you lost all references to a chunk of allocated memory means nothing to the runtime: this fact will only be considered during the next GC cycle.
In an idling program, which performs no allocations, a piece of allocated memory has a chance of not being collected at all—since no GC cycle will ever be performed.
On a side note, the original mental image of how a GC
works which you held is not untrue per se—there indeed exist programming languages with no explicit memory management which actually de-allocate the memory in cases like the one you have mentioned. This is typical for scripting (at least originally) programming languages such as Python, Tcl, Perl (≤ 5 at least) etc. These languages use so-called reference-counting for the values they operate with. The logic is basically that every assignment of a value to a variable (including passing it as a function's argument) increments a number of references recorded for that variable, and when the execution leaves the scope of a variable, the refcount of the value held in it is decremented. When a value's refcount drops to 0, the value is freed.
This approach works, and appears to be natural, but it has certain downsides such as:
The need to maintain a refcount field for each value.
The need to spend CPU cycles each time that field has to be updated (add to that also the CPU cache thrashing).
Inability of this scheme to deal with cyclic references.
I would also add to this that this scheme does not play well with concurrent access to the variables: if you add concurrency (as in Go) in the mix, you'll end up with the requirement for all updates of these refcount fields to be mutually exclusive and with unfunny problems following such as how to deal with the case when one thread of execution unreferences a value, notices the refcount crossed the zero and frees the value and then another thread waiting on the former to increment the reference gets unblocked and finds out the value it wanted to reference does not exist any more.
I have a C++ code and I am playing with Intel's VTune and I ran the General Exploration analysis and have no idea how to interpret the results. It flags as an issue the number of Retire Stalls.
On it's own, that is enough to confuse me because I'm probably in over my head. But the functions that it lists as having an abnormal amount of retire stalls is _int_malloc and malloc_consolidate, both in libc. So it's not even something that I can look at my own code and try to figure out and it's not something that I can really begin to change.
Is there a way to use that information to improve my own code? Or does it really just mean that I should find ways to allocate less or less often?
(Note: the specific code at hand isn't the issue, I'm looking for strategies to interpret the data and improve things when the hotspots or the stalls or whatever the "problem" may be occurs in code outside my control)
Is there a way to use that information to improve my own code? Or does
it really just mean that I should find ways to allocate less or less
often?
Yes, it pretty much sounds like you should make changes in your code so that malloc gets called less often.
Is the heap allocation really necessary?
Is there a buffer that you can reuse?
Is using memory pool an option?
Can you do stack allocation instead? For example, if those are
arrays, do you happen to know the maximum size of those arrays at
compile time?
Depending on your application, memory allocation can be expensive. I once made a program 20x faster by removing memory allocations from a tight loop. The application wasn't that slow on Linux but it was a disaster on Windows. After my changes, it was also OK on Windows.
know which line of code is calling malloc mostly
avoid repeated allocation and deallocation
potentially use thread-local-storage together with the previous point
write your own allocator which only returns memory when you tell him to and otherwise keeps freed memory blocks in a list (use list::splice to move list elements from one list into another)
use allocators from boost which potentially do the same like the previous point
I'm developing a simple little toy OS in C and assembly as an experiment, but I'm starting to worry myself with my lack of knowledge on system memory.
I've been able to compile the kernel, run it in Bochs (loaded by GRUB), and have it print "Hello, world!" Now I'm off trying to make a simple memory manager so I can start experimenting with other things.
I found some resources on memory management, but they didn't really have enough code to go off of (as in I understood the concept, but I was at a loss for actually knowing how to implement it).
I tried a few more or less complicated strategies, then settled with a ridiculously simplistic one (just keep an offset in memory and increase it by the size of the allocated object) until the need arises to change. No fragmentation control, protection, or anything, yet.
So I would like to know where I can find more information when I do need a more robust manager. And I'd also like to learn more about paging, segmentation, and other relevant things. So far I haven't dealt with paging at all, but I've seen it mentioned often in OS development sites, so I'm guessing I'll have to deal with it sooner or later.
I've also read about some form of indirect pointers, where an application holds a pointer that is redirected by the memory manager to its real location. That's quite a ways off for me, I'm sure, but it seems important if I ever want to try virtual memory or defragmentation.
And also, where am I supposed to put my memory offset? I had no idea what the best spot was, so I just randomly picked 0x1000, and I'm sure it's going to come back to me later when I overwrite my kernel or something.
I'd also like to know what I should expect performance-wise (e.g. a big-O value for allocation and release) and what a reasonable ratio of memory management structures to actual managed memory would be.
Of course, feel free to answer just a subset of these questions. Any feedback is greatly appreciated!
If you don't know about it already, http://wiki.osdev.org/ is a good resource in general, and has multiple articles on memory management. If you're looking for a particular memory allocation algorithm, I'd suggest reading up on the "buddy system" method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_memory_allocation). I think you can probably find an example implementation on the Internet. If you can find a copy in a library, it's also probably worth reading the section of The Art Of Computer Programming dedicated to memory management (Volume 1, Section 2.5).
I don't know where you should put the memory offset (to be honest I've never written a kernel), but one thing that occurred to me which might work is to place a static variable at the end of the kernel, and start allocations after that address. Something like:
(In the memory manager)
extern char endOfKernel;
... (also in the memory manager)
myOffset = &endOfKernel;
... (at the end of the file that gets placed last in the binary)
char endOfKernel;
I guess it goes without saying, but depending on how serious you get about the operating system, you'll probably want some books on operating system design, and if you're in school it wouldn't hurt to take an OS class.
If you're using GCC with LD, you can create a linker script that defines a symbol at the end of the .BSS section (which would give you the complete size of the kernel's memory footprint). Many kernels in fact use this value as a parameter for GRUB's AOUT_KLUDGE header.
See http://wiki.osdev.org/Bare_bones#linker.ld for more details, note the declaration of the ebss symbol in the linker script.
I'm reviewing some code and feel suspicious of the technique being used.
In a linux environment, there are two processes that attach multiple
shared memory segments. The first process periodically loads a new set
of files to be shared, and writes the shared memory id (shmid) into
a location in the "master" shared memory segment. The second process
continually reads this "master" location and uses the shmid to attach
the other shared segments.
On a multi-cpu host, it seems to me it might be implementation dependent
as to what happens if one process tries to read the memory while it's
being written by the other. But perhaps hardware-level bus locking prevents
mangled bits on the wire? It wouldn't matter if the reading process got
a very-soon-to-be-changed value, it would only matter if the read was corrupted
to something that was neither the old value nor the new value. This is an edge case: only 32 bits are being written and read.
Googling for shmat stuff hasn't led me to anything that's definitive in this
area.
I suspect strongly it's not safe or sane, and what I'd really
like is some pointers to articles that describe the problems in detail.
It is legal -- as in the OS won't stop you from doing it.
But is it smart? No, you should have some type of synchronization.
There wouldn't be "mangled bits on the wire". They will come out either as ones or zeros. But there's nothing to say that all your bits will be written out before another process tries to read them. And there are NO guarantees on how fast they'll be written vs how fast they'll be read.
You should always assume there is absolutely NO relationship between the actions of 2 processes (or threads for that matter).
Hardware level bus locking does not happen unless you get it right. It can be harder then expected to make your compiler / library / os / cpu get it right. Synchronization primitives are written to makes sure it happens right.
Locking will make it safe, and it's not that hard to do. So just do it.
#unknown - The question has changed somewhat since my answer was posted. However, the behavior you describe is defiantly platform (hardware, os, library and compiler) dependent.
Without giving the compiler specific instructions, you are actually not guaranteed to have 32 bits written out in one shot. Imagine a situation where the 32 bit word is not aligned on a word boundary. This unaligned access is acceptable on x86, and in the case of the x68, the access is turned into a series of aligned accesses by the cpu.
An interrupt can occurs between those operations. If a context switch happens in the middle, some of the bits are written, some aren't. Bang, You're Dead.
Also, lets think about 16 bit cpus or 64 bit cpus. Both of which are still popular and don't necessarily work the way you think.
So, actually you can have a situation where "some other cpu-core picks up a word sized value 1/2 written to". You write you code as if this type of thing is expected to happen if you are not using synchronization.
Now, there are ways to preform your writes to make sure that you get a whole word written out. Those methods fall under the category of synchronization, and creating synchronization primitives is the type of thing that's best left to the library, compiler, os, and hardware designers. Especially if you are interested in portability (which you should be, even if you never port your code)
The problem's actually worse than some of the people have discussed. Zifre is right that on current x86 CPUs memory writes are atomic, but that is rapidly ceasing to be the case - memory writes are only atomic for a single core - other cores may not see the writes in the same order.
In other words if you do
a = 1;
b = 2;
on CPU 2 you might see location b modified before location 'a' is. Also if you're writing a value that's larger than the native word size (32 bits on an x32 processor) the writes are not atomic - so the high 32 bits of a 64 bit write will hit the bus at a different time from the low 32 bits of the write. This can complicate things immensely.
Use a memory barrier and you'll be ok.
You need locking somewhere. If not at the code level, then at the hardware memory cache and bus.
You are probably OK on a post-PentiumPro Intel CPU. From what I just read, Intel made their later CPUs essentially ignore the LOCK prefix on machine code. Instead the cache coherency protocols make sure that the data is consistent between all CPUs. So if the code writes data that doesn't cross a cache-line boundary, it will work. The order of memory writes that cross cache-lines isn't guaranteed, so multi-word writes are risky.
If you are using anything other than x86 or x86_64 then you are not OK. Many non-Intel CPUs (and perhaps Intel Itanium) gain performance by using explicit cache coherency machine commands, and if you do not use them (via custom ASM code, compiler intrinsics, or libraries) then writes to memory via cache are not guaranteed to ever become visible to another CPU or to occur in any particular order.
So just because something works on your Core2 system doesn't mean that your code is correct. If you want to check portability, try your code also on other SMP architectures like PPC (an older MacPro or a Cell blade) or an Itanium or an IBM Power or ARM. The Alpha was a great CPU for revealing bad SMP code, but I doubt you can find one.
Two processes, two threads, two cpus, two cores all require special attention when sharing data through memory.
This IBM article provides an excellent overview of your options.
Anatomy of Linux synchronization methods
Kernel atomics, spinlocks, and mutexes
by M. Tim Jones (mtj#mtjones.com), Consultant Engineer, Emulex
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-linux-synchronization.html
I actually believe this should be completely safe (but is depends on the exact implementation). Assuming the "master" segment is basically an array, as long as the shmid can be written atomically (if it's 32 bits then probably okay), and the second process is just reading, you should be okay. Locking is only needed when both processes are writing, or the values being written cannot be written atomically. You will never get a corrupted (half written values). Of course, there may be some strange architectures that can't handle this, but on x86/x64 it should be okay (and probably also ARM, PowerPC, and other common architectures).
Read Memory Ordering in Modern Microprocessors, Part I and Part II
They give the background to why this is theoretically unsafe.
Here's a potential race:
Process A (on CPU core A) writes to a new shared memory region
Process A puts that shared memory ID into a shared 32-bit variable (that is 32-bit aligned - any compiler will try to align like this if you let it).
Process B (on CPU core B) reads the variable. Assuming 32-bit size and 32-bit alignment, it shouldn't get garbage in practise.
Process B tries to read from the shared memory region. Now, there is no guarantee that it'll see the data A wrote, because you missed out the memory barrier. (In practise, there probably happened to be memory barriers on CPU B in the library code that maps the shared memory segment; the problem is that process A didn't use a memory barrier).
Also, it's not clear how you can safely free the shared memory region with this design.
With the latest kernel and libc, you can put a pthreads mutex into a shared memory region. (This does need a recent version with NPTL - I'm using Debian 5.0 "lenny" and it works fine). A simple lock around the shared variable would mean you don't have to worry about arcane memory barrier issues.
I can't believe you're asking this. NO it's not safe necessarily. At the very least, this will depend on whether the compiler produces code that will atomically set the shared memory location when you set the shmid.
Now, I don't know Linux, but I suspect that a shmid is 16 to 64 bits. That means it's at least possible that all platforms would have some instruction that could write this value atomically. But you can't depend on the compiler doing this without being asked somehow.
Details of memory implementation are among the most platform-specific things there are!
BTW, it may not matter in your case, but in general, you have to worry about locking, even on a single CPU system. In general, some device could write to the shared memory.
I agree that it might work - so it might be safe, but not sane.
The main question is if this low-level sharing is really needed - I am not an expert on Linux, but I would consider to use for instance a FIFO queue for the master shared memory segment, so that the OS does the locking work for you. Consumer/producers usually need queues for synchronization anyway.
Legal? I suppose. Depends on your "jurisdiction". Safe and sane? Almost certainly not.
Edit: I'll update this with more information.
You might want to take a look at this Wikipedia page; particularly the section on "Coordinating access to resources". In particular, the Wikipedia discussion essentially describes a confidence failure; non-locked access to shared resources can, even for atomic resources, cause a misreporting / misrepresentation of the confidence that an action was done. Essentially, in the time period between checking to see whether or not it CAN modify the resource, the resource gets externally modified, and therefore, the confidence inherent in the conditional check is busted.
I don't believe anybody here has discussed how much of an impact lock contention can have over the bus, especially on bus bandwith constrained systems.
Here is an article about this issue in some depth, they discuss some alternative schedualing algorythems which reduse the overall demand on exclusive access through the bus. Which increases total throughput in some cases over 60% than a naieve scheduler (when considering the cost of an explicit lock prefix instruction or implicit xchg cmpx..). The paper is not the most recent work and not much in the way of real code (dang academic's) but it worth the read and consideration for this problem.
More recent CPU ABI's provide alternative operations than simple lock whatever.
Jeffr, from FreeBSD (author of many internal kernel components), discusses monitor and mwait, 2 instructions added for SSE3, where in a simple test case identified an improvement of 20%. He later postulates;
So this is now the first stage in the
adaptive algorithm, we spin a while,
then sleep at a high power state, and
then sleep at a low power state
depending on load.
...
In most cases we're still idling in
hlt as well, so there should be no
negative effect on power. In fact, it
wastes a lot of time and energy to
enter and exit the idle states so it
might improve power under load by
reducing the total cpu time required.
I wonder what would be the effect of using pause instead of hlt.
From Intel's TBB;
ALIGN 8
PUBLIC __TBB_machine_pause
__TBB_machine_pause:
L1:
dw 090f3H; pause
add ecx,-1
jne L1
ret
end
Art of Assembly also uses syncronization w/o the use of lock prefix or xchg. I haven't read that book in a while and won't speak directly to it's applicability in a user-land protected mode SMP context, but it's worth a look.
Good luck!
If the shmid has some type other than volatile sig_atomic_t then you can be pretty sure that separate threads will get in trouble even on the very same CPU. If the type is volatile sig_atomic_t then you can't be quite as sure, but you still might get lucky because multithreading can do more interleaving than signals can do.
If the shmid crosses cache lines (partly in one cache line and partly in another) then while the writing cpu is writing you sure find a reading cpu reading part of the new value and part of the old value.
This is exactly why instructions like "compare and swap" were invented.
Sounds like you need a Reader-Writer Lock : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readers-writer_lock.
The answer is - it's absolutely safe to do reads and writes simultaneously.
It is clear that the shm mechanism
provides bare-bones tools for the
user. All access control must be taken
care of by the programmer. Locking and
synchronization is being kindly
provided by the kernel, this means the
user have less worries about race
conditions. Note that this model
provides only a symmetric way of
sharing data between processes. If a
process wishes to notify another
process that new data has been
inserted to the shared memory, it will
have to use signals, message queues,
pipes, sockets, or other types of IPC.
From Shared Memory in Linux article.
The latest Linux shm implementation just uses copy_to_user and copy_from_user calls, which are synchronised with memory bus internally.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Garbage collection has been around since the early days of LISP, and now - several decades on - most modern programming languages utilize it.
Assuming that you're using one of these languages, what reasons would you have to not use garbage collection, and instead manually manage the memory allocations in some way?
Have you ever had to do this?
Please give solid examples if possible.
I can think of a few:
Deterministic deallocation/cleanup
Real time systems
Not giving up half the memory or processor time - depending on the algorithm
Faster memory alloc/dealloc and application-specific allocation, deallocation and management of memory. Basically writing your own memory stuff - typically for performance sensitive apps. This can be done where the behavior of the application is fairly well understood. For general purpose GC (like for Java and C#) this is not possible.
EDIT
That said, GC has certainly been good for much of the community. It allows us to focus more on the problem domain rather than nifty programming tricks or patterns. I'm still an "unmanaged" C++ developer though. Good practices and tools help in that case.
Memory allocations? No, I think the GC is better at it than I am.
But scarce resource allocations, like file handles, database connections, etc.? I write the code to close those when I'm done. GC won't do that for you.
I do a lot of embedded development, where the question is more likely to be whether to use malloc or static allocation and garbage collection is not an option.
I also write a lot of PC-based support tools and will happily use GC where it is available & fast enough and it means that I don't have to use pedant::std::string.
I write a lot of compression & encryption code and GC performance is usually not good enough unless I really bend the implementation. GC also requires you to be very careful with address aliasing tricks. I normally write performance sensitive code in C and call it from Python / C# front ends.
So my answer is that there are reasons to avoid GC, but the reason is almost always performance and it's then best to code the stuff that needs it in another language rather than trying to trick the GC.
If I develop something in MSVC++, I never use garbage collection. Partly because it is non-standard, but also because I've grown up without GC in C++ and automatically design in safe memory reclamation. Having said this, I think that C++ is an abomination which fails to offer the translation transparency and predictability of C or the scoped memory safety (amongst other things) of later OO languages.
Real time applications are probably difficult to write with a garbage collector. Maybe with an incremental GC that works in another thread, but this is an additional overhead.
One case I can think of is when you are dealing with large data sets amounting to hundreads of megabytes or more. Depending on the situation you might want to free this memory as soon as you are done with it, so that other applications can use it.
Also, when dealing with some unmanaged code there might be a situation where you might want to prevent the GC from collecting some data because it's still being used by the unmanaged part. Though I still have to think of a good reason why simply keeping a reference to it might not be good enough. :P
One situation I've dealt with is image processing. While working on an algorithm for cropping images, I've found that managed libraries just aren't fast enough to cut it on large images or on multiple images at a time.
The only way to do processing on an image at a reasonable speed was to use non-managed code in my situation. This was while working on a small personal side-project in C# .NET where I didn't want to learn a third-party library because of the size of the project and because I wanted to learn it to better myself. There may have been an existing third-party library (perhaps Paint.NET) that could do it, but it still would require unmanaged code.
Two words: Space Hardening
I know its an extreme case, but still applicable. One of the coding standards that applied to the core of the Mars rovers actually forbid dynamic memory allocation. While this is indeed extreme, it illustrates a "deploy and forget about it with no worries" ideal.
In short, have some sense as to what your code is actually doing to someone's computer. If you do, and you are conservative .. then let the memory fairy take care of the rest. While you develop on a quad core, your user might be on something much older, with much less memory to spare.
Use garbage collection as a safety net, be aware of what you allocate.
There are two major types of real time systems, hard and soft. The main distinction is that hard real time systems require that an algorithm always finish in a particular time budget where as a soft system would like it to normally happen. Soft systems can potentially use well designed garbage collectors although a normal one would not be acceptable. However if a hard real time system algorithm did not complete in time then lives could be in danger. You will find such sorts of systems in nuclear reactors, aeroplanes and space shuttles and even then only in the specialist software that the operating systems and drivers are made of. Suffice to say this is not your common programming job.
People who write these systems don't tend to use general purpose programming languages. Ada was designed for the purpose of writing these sorts of real time systems. Despite being a special language for such systems in some systems the language is cut down further to a subset known as Spark. Spark is a special safety critical subset of the Ada language and one of the features it does not allow is the creation of a new object. The new keyword for objects is totally banned for its potential to run out of memory and its variable execution time. Indeed all memory access in Spark is done with absolute memory locations or stack variables and no new allocations on the heap is made. A garbage collector is not only totally useless but harmful to the guaranteed execution time.
These sorts of systems are not exactly common, but where they exist some very special programming techniques are required and guaranteed execution times are critical.
Just about all of these answers come down to performance and control. One angle I haven't seen in earlier posts is that skipping GC gives your application more predictable cache behavior in two ways.
In certain cache sensitive applications, having the language automatically trash your cache every once in a while (although this depends on the implementation) can be a problem.
Although GC is orthogonal to allocation, most implementations give you less control over the specifics. A lot of high performance code has data structures tuned for caches, and implementing stuff like cache-oblivious algorithms requires more fine grained control over memory layout. Although conceptually there's no reason GC would be incompatible with manually specifying memory layout, I can't think of a popular implementation that lets you do so.
Assuming that you're using one of these languages, what reasons would you have to not use garbage collection, and instead manually manage the memory allocations in some way?
Potentially, several possible reasons:
Program latency due to the garbage collector is unacceptably high.
Delay before recycling is unacceptably long, e.g. allocating a big array on .NET puts it in the Large Object Heap (LOH) which is infrequently collected so it will hang around for a while after it has become unreachable.
Other overheads related to garbage collection are unacceptably high, e.g. the write barrier.
The characteristics of the garbage collector are unnacceptable, e.g. redoubling arrays on .NET fragments the Large Object Heap (LOH) causing out of memory when 32-bit address space is exhausted even though there is theoretically plenty of free space. In OCaml (and probably most GC'd languages), functions with deep thread stacks run asymptotically slower. Also in OCaml, threads are prevented from running in parallel by a global lock on the GC so (in theory) parallelism can be achieved by dropping to C and using manual memory management.
Have you ever had to do this?
No, I have never had to do that. I have done it for fun. For example, I wrote a garbage collector in F# (a .NET language) and, in order to make my timings representative, I adopted an allocationless style in order to avoid GC latency. In production code, I have had to optimize my programs using knowledge of how the garbage collector works but I have never even had to circumvent it from within .NET, much less drop .NET entirely because it imposes a GC.
The nearest I have come to dropping garbage collection was dropping the OCaml language itself because its GC impedes parallelism. However, I ended up migrating to F# which is a .NET language and, consequently, inherits the CLR's excellent multicore-capable GC.
I don't quite understand the question. Since you ask about a language that uses GC, I assume you are asking for examples like
Deliberately hang on to a reference even when I know it's dead, maybe to reuse the object to satisfy a future allocation request.
Keep track of some objects and close them explicitly, because they hold resources that can't easily be managed with the garbage collector (open file descriptors, windows on the screen, that sort of thing).
I've never found a reason to do #1, but #2 is one that comes along occasionally. Many garbage collectors offer mechanisms for finalization, which is an action that you bind to an object and the system runs that action before the object is reclaimed. But oftentimes the system provides no guarantees about whether or if finalizers actually run, so finalization can be of limited utility.
The main thing I do in a garbage-collected language is to keep a tight watch on the number of allocations per unit of other work I do. Allocation is usually the performance bottleneck, especially in Java or .NET systems. It is less of an issue in languages like ML, Haskell, or LISP, which are typically designed with the idea that the program is going to allocate like crazy.
EDIT: longer response to comment.
Not everyone understands that when it comes to performance, the allocator and the GC must be considered as a team. In a state-of-the-art system, allocation is done from contiguous free space (the 'nursery') and is as quick as test and increment. But unless the object allocated is incredibly short-lived, the object incurs a debt down the line: it has to be copied out of the nursery, and if it lives a while, it may be copied through several generatations. The best systems use contiguous free space for allocation and at some point switch from copying to mark/sweep or mark/scan/compact for older objects. So if you're very picky, you can get away with ignoring allocations if
You know you are dealing with a state-of-the art system that allocates from continuous free space (a nursery).
The objects you allocate are very short-lived (less than one allocation cycle in the nursery).
Otherwise, allocated objects may be cheap initially, but they represent work that has to be done later. Even if the cost of the allocation itself is a test and increment, reducing allocations is still the best way to improve performance. I have tuned dozens of ML programs using state-of-the-art allocators and collectors and this is still true; even with the very best technology, memory management is a common performance bottleneck.
And you'd be surprised how many allocators don't deal well even with very short-lived objects. I just got a big speedup from Lua 5.1.4 (probably the fastest of the scripting language, with a generational GC) by replacing a sequence of 30 substitutions, each of which allocated a fresh copy of a large expression, with a simultaneous substitution of 30 names, which allocated one copy of the large expression instead of 30. Performance problem disappeared.
In video games, you don't want to run the garbage collector in between a game frame.
For example, the Big Bad is in front
of you and you are down to 10 life.
You decided to run towards the Quad
Damage powerup. As soon as you pick up
the powerup, you prepare yourself to
turn towards your enemy to fire with
your strongest weapon.
When the powerup disappeared, it would
be a bad idea to run the garbage
collector just because the game world
has to delete the data for the
powerup.
Video games usually manages their objects by figuring out what is needed in a certain map (this is why it takes a while to load maps with a lot of objects). Some game engines would call the garbage collector after certain events (after saving, when the engine detects there's no threat in the vicinity, etc).
Other than video games, I don't find any good reasons to turn off garbage collecting.
Edit: After reading the other comments, I realized that embedded systems and Space Hardening (Bill's and tinkertim's comments, respectively) are also good reasons to turn off the garbage collector
The more critical the execution, the more you want to postpone garbage collection, but the longer you postpone garbage collection, the more of a problem it will eventually be.
Use the context to determine the need:
1.
Garbage collection is supposed to protect against memory leaks
Do you need more state than you can manage in your head?
2.
Returning memory by destroying objects with no references can be unpredictable
Do you need more pointers than you can manage in your head?
3.
Resource starvation can be caused by garbage collection
Do you have more CPU and memory than you can manage in your head?
4.
Garbage collection cannot address files and sockets
Do you have I/O as your primary concern?
In systems that use garbage collection, weak pointers are sometimes used to implement a simple caching mechanism because objects with no strong references are deallocated only when memory pressure triggers garbage collection. However, with ARC, values are deallocated as soon as their last strong reference is removed, making weak references unsuitable for such a purpose.
References
GC FAQ
Smart Pointer Guidelines
Transitioning to ARC Release Notes
Accurate Garbage Collection with LLVM
Memory management in various languages
jwz on Garbage Collection
Apple Could Power the Web
How Do The Script Garbage Collectors Work?
Minimize Garbage Generation: GC is your Friend, not your Servant
Garbage Collection in IE6
Slow web browser performance when you view a Web page that uses JScript in Internet Explorer 6
Transitioning to ARC Release Notes: Which classes don’t support weak references?
Automatic Reference Counting: Weak References