After reading this article https://developer.ibm.com/tutorials/l-memory-leaks/ I'm wondering is there a way to cancel thread execution and avoid memory leaks. Since my understanding is that the join functionality is releasing the allocated space. That should be possible to do also by other commands. The thing that interest me how does join releases the memory space and other functions cant? Is there a function that gives to witch thread a memory space is assigned? Can this be given out (the mapping)? I know one should not do crazy things with that since it represents an potential safety issue. But still are there ways to achieve that?
For example if I have a third party lib then I can identify its threads but I have the problem that I cannot identify allocated memory spaces in the lib, or I do not know how to do that (the lib is a binary).
If the library doesn't support that, you can't. Your understanding of the issue is slightly off. It doesn't matter who allocated the memory, it matters whether the memory still needs to be allocated or not. If the library provides some way to get to the point where the memory no longer needs to be allocated, that provided way would also provide a way to free the memory. If the library doesn't provide any way to get to the point where the memory no longer needs to be allocated, some way to free it would not be helpful.
Coding such stuff is a rabbit hole and should be done on the OS level.
Can't be done. The OS has no way to know when the code that allocated some chunk of memory still needs it and when it doesn't. Only the code that allocated the memory can possibly know that.
Posix allows canceling but not identifying the individual threads, and not all Posix functionality works on linux. Posix is just a layer over the stl stuff in the OS.
Right, so POSIX is not the place where this goes. It requires understanding of the application and so must be done at the application layer. If you need this functionality, code it. If you need it in other people's code and they don't supply it, talk to them. Presumably, if their code is decent and appropriate, it has some way to d what you need. If not, your complaint is with the code that doesn't do what you need.
My thoughts on that were that somewhere in Linux the system tracks what allocation on heap were made by the threads if some option is enabled since I know by default there is nothing.
That doesn't help. Which thread allocated memory tells you absolutely nothing about when it is no longer needed. Only the same code that decided it was needed can tell when it is no longer needed. So if this is needed in some code that allocates memory, that code must implement this. If the person who implemented that code did not provide this kind of facility, then that means they decided it wasn't needed. You may wish to ask them why they made that decision. Their answer may well surprise you.
But I see there is no answer to a serious question.
The answer is to code what you need. If it's someone else's code and they didn't code it, then they didn't think you would need it. They're most likely right. But if they're wrong, then don't use their code.
Is there a way to implement dynamically adapting caches in userspace? I would like my programs to allocate caches that employ some fair share of the available physical memory. If the system is running out of physical memory, caches should be dropped as chosen by the program, and in no case should they be swapped out. It is preferrable that no special privilege was needed, so it is not necessary to actually lock the memory. The program should just get to know that pages are swapped out, so it is not going to use them. All in all, it should work something like caches and buffers implemented in the kernel. Can you point out general ideas and APIs how that can be done? Platforms I am interested in are Linux and Windows.
Why do you think there is any reasonable way to define "fair share"? It's not really a great UX when the application tries to know too much: far better would be to find a sensible, minimal default, and offer the user a config option to adjust it. Even better is to provide the user with stats to show how well the current-sized cache is doing - bigger isn't always better.
There is no "cooperative memory management" API in Linux - no way for the kernel to tell user-space to use less memory. The closest I can think of is that the (relatively new) memory cgroup controller can provide a "notifier" when a memory limit is reached (rather than OOM-killing the allocating process.) That's not exactly nice to use, but then again, any such interface is going to flirt with being race/deadlock-prone. Polling with mincore might work in somewhat contrived/constrained situations, but given that the app has no way to understand the changing system-wide demand for memory, it's not going to work well.
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.
Cocoa provides for page-aligned memory areas that it calls Memory Zones, and provides a few memory management functions that take a zone as an argument.
Let's assume you need to allocate a block of memory (not for an object, but for arbitrary data). If you call malloc(size), the buffer will always be allocated in the default zone. However, somebody may have used allocWithZone: to allocate your object in another zone besides the default. In that case, it would seem better to use NSZoneMalloc([self zone], size), which keeps your buffer and owning object in the same area of memory.
Do you follow this practice? Have you ever made use of memory zones?
Update: I think there is a tendency on Stack Overflow to respond to questions about low-level topics with a lecture about premature optimization. I understand that zones probably mattered more in 1993 on NeXT hardware than they do today, and a Google search makes it pretty clear that virtually nobody is concerned with them. I am asking anyway, to see if somebody could describe a project where they made use of memory zones.
I've written software for NeXTStep, GNUstep on Linux and Cocoa on Mac OS X, and have never needed to use custom memory zones. The condition which would suggest it as a good improvement to the software has either never arisen, or never been detected as significant.
You're absolutely right in your entire question, but in practice, nobody really uses zones. As the page you link to puts it:
In most circumstances, using the default zone is faster and more efficient than creating a separate zone.
The benefit of making your own zone is:
If a page fault occurs when trying to access one of the objects, loading the page brings in all of the related objects, which could significantly reduce the number of future page faults.
If a page fault occurs, that means that the system was recently paging things out and is therefore slow anyway, and that either your app is not responsible or the solution is in the part of your app that allocated too much memory at once in the first place.
So, basically, the question is “can you prove that you really do need to create your own zone to fix a performance problem or make your app wicked fast”, and the answer is “no”.
If you find yourself doing this, you're probably operating at a lower level than you really ought to be. The subsystem pretty much ignores them; any calls to +alloc or such will get you objects in the default zone. malloc and NSAllocateCollectable are all you need to know.
I have to analyze the memory accesses of several programs. What I am looking for is a profiler that allow me to see which one of my programs is more memory intensive insted of computing intensive. I am very interested in the number of accesses to the L1 data cache, L2, and the main memory.
It needs to be for Linux and if it is possible only with command usage. The programming language is c++. If there is any problem with my question, such as I do not understand what you mean or we need more data please comment below.
Thank you.
Update with the solution
I have selected the answer of Crashworks as favourited because is the only one that provided something of what I was looking for. But the question is still open, if you know a better solution please answer.
It is not possible to determine all accesses to memory, since it doesn't make much sense. An access to memory could be executing next instruction (program resides in memory), or when your program reads or write a variable, so your program is almost accessing memory all the time.
What could be more interesting for you could be follow the memory usage of your program (both heap and stack). In this case you can use standard top command.
You could also monitor system calls (i.e. to write to disk or to attach/alloc a shared memory segment). In this case you should use strace command.
A more complete control to do everything would be debugging your program by means of gdb debugger. It lets you control your program such as setting breakpoints to a variable so the program is interrputed whenever it is read or written (maybe this is what you were looking for). On the other hand GDB can be tricky to learn so DDD, which is a gtk graphical frontend will help you starting out with it.
Update: What you are looking for is really low level memory access that it is not available at user level (that is the task of the kernel of the operating system). I am not sure if even L1 cache management is handled transparently by CPU and hidden to kernel.
What is clear is that you need to go as down as kernel level, so KDB, explained here o KDBG, explained here.
Update 2: It seems that Linux kernel does handle CPU cache but only L1 cache. The book Understanding the Linux Virtual Memory Manager explais how memory management of Linux kernel works. This chapter explains some of the guts of L1 cache handling.
If you are running Intel hardware, then VTune for Linux is probably the best and most full-featured tool available to you.
Otherwise, you may be obliged to read the performance-counter MSRs directly, using the perfctr library. I haven't any experience with this on Linux myself, but I found a couple of papers that may help you (assuming you are on x86 -- if you're running PPC, please reply and I can provide more detailed answers):
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/11169/35961/01704008.pdf?temp=x
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~sb3/files/pmc.pdf
In general these tools can't tell you exactly which lines your cache misses occur on, because they work by polling a counter. What you will need to do is poll the "l1 cache miss" counter at the beginning and end of each function you're interested in to see how many misses occur inside that function, and of course you may do so hierarchically. This can be simplified by eg inventing a class that records the start timer on entering scope and computes the delta on leaving scope.
VTune's instrumented mode does this for you automatically across the whole program. The equivalent AMD tool is CodeAnalyst. Valgrind claims to be an open-source cache profiler, but I've never used it myself.
Perhaps cachegrind (part of the valgrind suite) may be suitable.
Do you need something more than the unix command top will provide? This provides cpu usage and memory usage of linux programs in an easy to read presentation format.
If you need something more specific, a profiler perhaps, the software language (java/c++/etc.) will help determine which profiler is best for your situation.