Quick question here:
template <class T>
T* allocate(std::size_t n){
return new T[n];
}
So in the above code, when n==1, we're doing new T[1], so I have two worries:
1.I heard that when allocating array, extra memory are used to store the length of the array (unsure though), so would this be malicious when having new T[1] a lot, wasting a lot of memory?
2.Should I free this using delete[] or simply delete?
Yes, in a typical implementation when you use new T[n] some extra memory will be required to store the exact length of the array, but only for types with non-trivial destructors.
E.g. in a typical implementation new int[1] carries no memory overhead compared to new int, but new std::string[1] will carry memory overhead compared to new std::string.
The extra memory is just an extra size_t field, meaning that percentage-wise it depends on the size of the object you allocated. If sizeof(T) is comparable to sizeof(size_t) the overhead might be considerable.
But it all might also depend on the additional details of the implementation-specific memory allocation mechanism.
In other words, if this a part of application-specific code it makes sense to try it and see whether it has any negative impact on your program's memory consumption. Maybe it is not a problem at all. But if you are writing a generic library, then things like that are worth paying attention to.
Yes, you should use delete [].
RAM is cheap. It is true that if all your program does, all the time, is allocate arrays of 1 object, over and over again, then this would be slightly wasteful, true. But an occasional allocation of a 1-element array is not going to be the end of the world.
Use delete[]. If you used new[], then you have to use delete[]. Doesn't matter how much was newed. This is a fairly cut-and-try rule. No exceptions.
No memory is used to store the length of the array, or at least no memory you are allowed to access. The memory manager that granted you the memory likely has some hidden bookkeeping. Should you find this bookkeeping, leave it alone. Anything you do with it is certainly non-portable. It is also possible you will be provided memory in fixed size blocks. You will be given a block that is at least the size of T. Any extra memory in this block is effectively wasted.
Anything allocated with new[] must be released with delete[] or you you invoke undefined behaviour. Once again, do not mess with the low-level memory manager.
Related
Given a container v with v.size() == 3 and v.capacity() == 5, my understanding is that a call to v.shrink_to_fit() can be fulfilled and, if it is, it causes v.capacity() to become 3.
However, this comes at the cost of a reallocation.
Why? Isn't it possible to free the unused memory without reallocating a chunk of memory for what remains?
Probably this question has its roots into how more primitive commands like new/delete and malloc/free work.
The underlying memory management system defines what is possible, and typically, they don't allow to return parts of the allocated memory: if you got n bytes, you either return n bytes, or nothing.
Returning the last m bytes (with m < n), or worse, returning m bytes in the middle of the n bytes, would of course be possible to offer, but consider the extra complexity needed to handle this correctly.
Of course, there could be some out there that do offer it, but your C++ compiler and the language definition doesn't necessarily know which ones run below it in the OS, so they have to accept the possibility that a reallocation is needed. Note that they don't guarantee that it will be needed - they just expect it.
The container does not allocate/deallocate the memory on itself, but it is it's allocator who does it.
For the (vector's) allocator to be able to deallocate the memory, it needs to be provided the exact the same pointer as the pointer to the memory it has allocated for the vector's data.
At this is the begin of the vector data and not the begin of the "not more used" data.
Basically, we are talking about this allocator's allocation/deallocation methods:
pointer allocate( size_type n, const void * hint = 0 );
void deallocate( T* p, std::size_t n );
The argument T* p of the deallocate will be the same as the pointer returned from allocate ( == begin of vector's data). This is what the vector's implementation will pass to the deallocate.
It is surely imaginable to have a custom vector implementation, who would be able to pass any pointer in range [data, data+size] to allocators deallocate method. One could construct such an allocator to be able to deal with it. But then all other allocators would need to conform to this API, also the standard allocator.
Then something like this would need to be able to "work":
int* p = new int[100];
delete [] (p + 50); // imagine making this work
This would add extra complexity, performance and other issues.
In fact, the standards just allows the allocator implementation to re-allocate when shrinking if it wants to. I do not know whether it is common in C++ library implementations, but I can remember some databases allocators that used different pools of disk segments, some for smaller blocks, and some for larger blocks. The rationale was that there were many small blocks and few large ones, so that segregation helped in reducing the fragmentation for the larger blocks pools. If this happens in a program, it could make sense to define a custom allocator that implements that rule.
The fact that the standard says that shrink_to_fit may reallocate, just allows the use of such a custom allocator.
I'm writing a C++14 JSON library as an exercise and to use it in my personal projects.
By using callgrind I've discovered that the current bottleneck during a continuous value creation from string stress test is an std::string dynamic memory allocation. Precisely, the bottleneck is the call to malloc(...) made from std::string::reserve.
I've read that many existing JSON libraries such as rapidjson use custom allocators to avoid malloc(...) calls during string memory allocations.
I tried to analyze rapidjson's source code but the large amount of additional code and comments, plus the fact that I'm not really sure what I'm looking for, didn't help me much.
How do custom allocators help in this situation?
Is a memory buffer preallocated somewhere (where? statically?) and std::strings take available memory from it?
Are strings using custom allocators "compatible" with normal strings?
They have different types. Do they have to be "converted"? (And does that result in a performance hit?)
Code notes:
Str is an alias for std::string.
By default, std::string allocates memory as needed from the same heap as anything that you allocate with malloc or new. To get a performance gain from providing your own custom allocator, you will need to be managing your own "chunk" of memory in such a way that your allocator can deal out the amounts of memory that your strings ask for faster than malloc does. Your memory manager will make relatively few calls to malloc, (or new, depending on your approach) under the hood, requesting "large" amounts of memory at once, then deal out sections of this (these) memory block(s) through the custom allocator. To actually achieve better performance than malloc, your memory manager will usually have to be tuned based on known allocation patterns of your use cases.
This kind of thing often comes down to the age-old trade off of memory use versus execution speed. For example: if you have a known upper bound on your string sizes in practice, you can pull tricks with over-allocating to always accommodate the largest case. While this is wasteful of your memory resources, it can alleviate the performance overhead that more generalized allocation runs into with memory fragmentation. As well as making any calls to realloc essentially constant time for your purposes.
#sehe is exactly right. There are many ways.
EDIT:
To finally address your second question, strings using different allocators can play nicely together, and usage should be transparent.
For example:
class myalloc : public std::allocator<char>{};
myalloc customAllocator;
int main(void)
{
std::string mystring(customAllocator);
std::string regularString = "test string";
mystring = regularString;
std::cout << mystring;
return 0;
}
This is a fairly silly example and, of course, uses the same workhorse code under the hood. However, it shows assignment between strings using allocator classes of "different types". Implementing a useful allocator that supplies the full interface required by the STL without just disguising the default std::allocator is not as trivial. This seems to be a decent write up covering the concepts involved. The key to why this works, in the context of your question at least, is that using different allocators doesn't cause the strings to be of different type. Notice that the custom allocator is given as an argument to the constructor not a template parameter. The STL still does fun things with templates (such as rebind and Traits) to homogenize allocator interfaces and tracking.
What often helps is the creation of a GlobalStringTable.
See if you can find portions of the old NiMain library from the now defunct NetImmerse software stack. It contains an example implementation.
Lifetime
What is important to note is that this string table needs to be accessible between different DLL spaces, and that it is not a static object. R. Martinho Fernandes already warned that the object needs to be created when the application or DLL thread is created / attached, and disposed when the thread is destroyed or the dll is detached, and preferrably before any string object is actually used. This sounds easier than it actually is.
Memory allocation
Once you have a single point of access that exports correctly, you can have it allocate a memory buffer up-front. If the memory is not enough, you have to resize it and move the existing strings over. Strings essentially become handles to regions of memory in this buffer.
Placement new
Something that often works well is called the placement new() operator, where you can actually specify where in memory your new string object needs to be allocated. However, instead of allocating, the operator can simply grab the memory location that is passed in as an argument, zero the memory at that location, and return it. You can also keep track of the allocation, the actual size of the string etc.. in the Globalstringtable object.
SOA
Handling the actual memory scheduling is something that is up to you, but there are many possible ways to approach this. Often, the allocated space is partitioned in several regions so that you have several blocks per possible string size. A block for strings <= 4 bytes, one for <= 8 bytes, and so on. This is called a Small Object Allocator, and can be implemented for any type and buffer.
If you expect many string operations where small strings are incremented repeatedly, you may change your strategy and allocate larger buffers from the start, so that the number of memmove operations are reduced. Or you can opt for a different approach and use string streams for those.
String operations
It is not a bad idea to derive from std::basic_str, so that most of the operations still work but the internal storage is actually in the GlobalStringTable, so that you can keep using the same stl conventions. This way, you also make sure that all the allocations are within a single DLL, so that there can be no heap corruption by linking different kinds of strings between different libraries, since all the allocation operations are essentially in your DLL (and are rerouted to the GlobalStringTable object)
Custom allocators can help because most malloc()/new implementations are designed for maximum flexibility, thread-safety and bullet-proof workings. For instance, they must gracefully handle the case that one thread keeps allocating memory, sending the pointers to another thread that deallocates them. Things like these are difficult to handle in a performant way and drive the cost of malloc() calls.
However, if you know that some things cannot happen in your application (like one thread deallocating stuff another thread allocated, etc.), you can optimize your allocator further than the standard implementation. This can yield significant results, especially when you don't need thread safety.
Also, the standard implementation is not necessarily well optimized: Implementing void* operator new(size_t size) and void operator delete(void* pointer) by simply calling through to malloc() and free() gives an average performance gain of 100 CPU cycles on my machine, which proves that the default implementation is suboptimal.
I think you'd be best served by reading up on the EASTL
It has a section on allocators and you might find fixed_string useful.
The best way to avoid a memory allocation is don't do it!
BUT if I remember JSON correctly all the readStr values either gets used as keys or as identifiers so you will have to allocate them eventually, std::strings move semantics should insure that the allocated array are not copied around but reused until its final use. The default NRVO/RVO/Move should reduce any copying of the data if not of the string header itself.
Method 1:
Pass result as a ref from the caller which has reserved SomeResonableLargeValue chars, then clear it at the start of readStr. This is only usable if the caller actually can reuse the string.
Method 2:
Use the stack.
// Reserve memory for the string (BOTTLENECK)
if (end - idx < SomeReasonableValue) { // 32?
char result[SomeReasonableValue] = {0}; // feel free to use std::array if you want bounds checking, but the preceding "if" should insure its not a problem.
int ridx = 0;
for(; idx < end; ++idx) {
// Not an escape sequence
if(!isC('\\')) { result[ridx++] = getC(); continue; }
// Escape sequence: skip '\'
++idx;
// Convert escape sequence
result[ridx++] = getEscapeSequence(getC());
}
// Skip closing '"'
++idx;
result[ridx] = 0; // 0-terminated.
// optional assert here to insure nothing went wrong.
return result; // the bottleneck might now move here as the data is copied to the receiving string.
}
// fallback code only if the string is long.
// Your original code here
Method 3:
If your string by default can allocate some size to fill its 32/64 byte boundary, you might want to try to use that, construct result like this instead in case the constructor can optimize it.
Str result(end - idx, 0);
Method 4:
Most systems already has some optimized allocator that like specific block sizes, 16,32,64 etc.
siz = ((end - idx)&~0xf)+16; // if the allocator has chunks of 16 bytes already.
Str result(siz);
Method 5:
Use either the allocator made by google or facebooks as global new/delete replacement.
To understand how a custom allocator can help you, you need to understand what malloc and the heap does and why it is quite slow in comparison to the stack.
The Stack
The stack is a large block of memory allocated for your current scope. You can think of it as this
([] means a byte of memory)
[P][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
(P is a pointer that points to a specific byte of memory, in this case its pointing at the first byte)
So the stack is a block with only 1 pointer. When you allocate memory, what it does is it performs a pointer arithmetic on P, which takes constant time.
So declaring int i = 0; would mean this,
P + sizeof(int).
[i][i][i][i][P][][][][][][][][][][][],
(i in [] is a block of memory occupied by an integer)
This is blazing fast and as soon as you go out of scope, the entire chunk of memory is emptied simply by moving P back to the first position.
The Heap
The heap allocates memory from a reserved pool of bytes reserved by the c++ compiler at runtime, when you call malloc, the heap finds a length of contiguous memory that fits your malloc requirements, marks it as used so nothing else can use it, and returns that to you as a void*.
So, a theoretical heap with little optimization calling new(sizeof(int)), would do this.
Heap chunk
At first : [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Allocate 4 bytes (sizeof(int)):
A pointer goes though every byte of memory, finds one that is of correct length, and returns to you a pointer.
After : [i][i][i][i][][][]][][][][][][][][][]][][][][][][][]
This is not an accurate representation of the heap, but from this you can already see numerous reasons for being slow relative to the stack.
The heap is required to keep track of all already allocated memory and their respective lengths. In our test case above, the heap was already empty and did not require much, but in worst case scenarios, the heap will be populated with multiple objects with gaps in between (heap fragmentation), and this will be much slower.
The heap is required to cycle though all the bytes to find one that fits your length.
The heap can suffer from fragmentation since it will never completely clean itself unless you specify it. So if you allocated an int, a char, and another int, your heap would look like this
[i][i][i][i][c][i2][i2][i2][i2]
(i stands for bytes occupied by int and c stands for bytes occupied by a char. When you de-allocate the char, it will look like this.
[i][i][i][i][empty][i2][i2][i2][i2]
So when you want to allocate another object into the heap,
[i][i][i][i][empty][i2][i2][i2][i2][i3][i3][i3][i3]
unless an object is the size of 1 char, the overall heap size for that allocation is reduced by 1 byte. In more complex programs with millions of allocations and deallocations, the fragmentation issue becomes severe and the program will become unstable.
Worry about cases like thread safety (Someone else said this already).
Custom Heap/Allocator
So, a custom allocator usually needs to address these problems while providing the benefits of the heap, such as personalized memory management and object permanence.
These are usually accomplished with specialized allocators. If you know you dont need to worry about thread safety or you know exactly how long your string will be or a predictable usage pattern you can make your allocator fast than malloc and new by quite a lot.
For example, if your program requires a lot of allocations as fast as possible without lots of deallocations, you could implement a stack allocator, in which you allocate a huge chunk of memory with malloc at startup,
e.g
typedef char* buffer;
//Super simple example that probably doesnt work.
struct StackAllocator:public Allocator{
buffer stack;
char* pointer;
StackAllocator(int expectedSize){ stack = new char[expectedSize];pointer = stack;}
allocate(int size){ char* returnedPointer = pointer; pointer += size; return returnedPointer}
empty() {pointer = stack;}
};
Get expected size, get a chunk of memory from the heap.
Assign a pointer to the beginning.
[P][][][][][][][][][] ..... [].
then have one pointer that moves for each allocation. When you no longer need the memory, you simply move the pointer to the beginning of your buffer. This gives your the advantage of O(1) speed allocations and deallocations as well as object permanence for the lack of flexible deallocation and large initial memory requirements.
For strings, you could try a chunk allocator. For every allocation, the allocator gives a set chunk of memory.
Compatibility
Compatibility with other strings is almost guaranteed. As long as you are allocating a contiguous chunk of memory and preventing anything else from using that block of memory, it will work.
When you allocate an array using new [], why can't you find out the size of that array from the pointer? It must be known at run time, otherwise delete [] wouldn't know how much memory to free.
Unless I'm missing something?
In a typical implementation the size of dynamic memory block is somehow stored in the block itself - this is true. But there's no standard way to access this information. (Implementations may provide implementation-specific ways to access it). This is how it is with malloc/free, this is how it is with new[]/delete[].
In fact, in a typical implementation raw memory allocations for new[]/delete[] calls are eventually processed by some implementation-specific malloc/free-like pair, which means that delete[] doesn't really have to care about how much memory to deallocate: it simply calls that internal free (or whatever it is named), which takes care of that.
What delete[] does need to know though is how many elements to destruct in situations when array element type has non-trivial destructor. And this is what your question is about - the number of array elements, not the size of the block (these two are not the same, the block could be larger than really required for the array itself). For this reason, the number of elements in the array is normally also stored inside the block by new[] and later retrieved by delete[] to perform the proper array element destruction. There are no standard ways to access this number either.
(This means that in general case, a typical memory block allocated by new[] will independently, simultaneously store both the physical block size in bytes and the array element count. These values are stored by different levels of C++ memory allocation mechanism - raw memory allocator and new[] itself respectively - and don't interact with each other in any way).
However, note that for the above reasons the array element count is normally only stored when the array element type has non-trivial destructor. I.e. this count is not always present. This is one of the reasons why providing a standard way to access that data is not feasible: you'd either have to store it always (which wastes memory) or restrict its availability by destructor type (which is confusing).
To illustrate the above, when you create an array of ints
int *array = new int[100];
the size of the array (i.e. 100) is not normally stored by new[] since delete[] does not care about it (int has no destructor). The physical size of the block in bytes (like, 400 bytes or more) is normally stored in the block by the raw memory allocator (and used by raw memory deallocator invoked by delete[]), but it can easily turn out to be 420 for some implementation-specific reason. So, this size is basically useless for you, since you won't be able to derive the exact original array size from it.
You most likely can access it, but it would require intimate knowledge of your allocator and would not be portable. The C++ standard doesn't specify how implementations store this data, so there's no consistent method for obtaining it. I believe it's left unspecified because different allocators may wish to store it in different ways for efficiency purposes.
It makes sense, as for example the size of the allocated block may not necessarily be the same size as the array. While it is true that new[] may store the number of elements (calling each elements destructor), it doesn't have to as it wouldn't be required for a empty destructor. There is also no standard way (C++ FAQ Lite 1, C++ FAQ Lite 2) of implementing where new[] stores the array length as each method has its pros and cons.
In other words, it allows allocations to as fast an cheap as possible by not specifying anything about the implementation. (If the implementation has to store the size of the array as well as the size of the allocated block every time, it wastes memory that you may not need).
Simply put, the C++ standard does not require support for this. It is possible that if you know enough about the internals of your compiler, you can figure out how to access this information, but that would generally be considered bad practice. Note that there may be a difference in memory layout for heap-allocated arrays and stack-allocated arrays.
Remember that essentially what you are talking about here are C-style arrays, too -- even though new and delete are C++ operators -- and the behavior is inherited from C. If you want a C++ "array" that is sized, you should be using the STL (e.g. std::vector, std::deque).
This may be very simple question,But please help me.
i wanted to know what exactly happens when i call new & delete , For example in below code
char * ptr=new char [10];
delete [] ptr;
call to new returns me memory address. Does it allocate exact 10 bytes on heap, Where information about size is stored.When i call delete on same pointer,i see in debugger that there are a lot of byte get changed before and after the 10 Bytes.
Is there any header for each new which contain information about number of byte allocated by new.
Thanks a lot
Do it allocate exact 10 bytes
That's implementation dependant. The guarantee is "at least 10 chars".
Where information about size is stored?
That's implementation dependant.
Is there any header for each new which contain information about number of byte allocated by new?
That's implementation dependant.
By "that's implementation dependant" I mean it's not defined in the standard.
That's all up to the compiler and your runtime library. It's only exactly defined what effects new and delete have on your program, but how exactly these are acieved is not specified.
In your case it seems like a little more memory than requested is allocated and it will probably store management information like the size of the current chunk of memory, information about adjacent areas of free space or information to help the debugger try to detect buffer overflows and similar problems.
It is completely implementation-dependent. In general case you have to store the number of elements elsewhere. The implementation must allocate enough space for at least the number of elements specified, but it can allocate more.
Is there any header for each new which contain information about number of byte allocated by new.
That's platform dependent but yes, on many platforms there are.
Precisely, according to the standard, new char[10] will alloc at least 10 bytes in the heap.
The internals of new and delete are implementation dependent. So it will vary from compiler to compiler, and platform to platform. Additionally, you can find a variety of allocator algorithms (e.g: TCMalloc).
I'll give you an overview of how it could work internally, but don't take it as absolute truth. It's written for the solely purpose of this explanation.
In short, the new operator internally invokes malloc. The malloc uses a really long linked list of available memory blocks, aka free chain. When malloc is invoked, it lookups this list for the first block that's big enough to hold the requested size. After that, it splits the block in two parts, one with the size you requested, and the other with the rest, which is then added back to the free chain. Finally, it returns the block with the request size.
The inverse occurs in a free call, which is invoked by delete/delete[]. In short, it puts the provided block back to the free chain.
There could be fancy tricks during the processes I described above, like sorting the free chain, rounding the requested size to the next power of two to reduce memory fragmentation, and so on.
char * ptr=new char [10];
You are creating an array of 10 character's in heap and storing the address of 0th element in a pointer.this is similar to doing an malloc in C
delete [] ptr;
You are deleting(freeing the memory) the heap memory which was allocated by the earlier statement.this is similar to doing a free in c.
It is implementation dependent, but mostly the metadata for a block of memory is usually stored in the area before the memory address returned. The change that you observed before the 10 bytes was likely metadata being updated for this block (likely the size of the block being written into the meta data), and after the 10 bytes were metadata being updated for the next block (still unallocated, likely the pointer to the next chunk on the free list).
It is not a good idea to mess with the heap as it is not portable. However, if you want to do such heap magic, I suggest you implement your own memory pools (just get a large chunk of memory from the heap and manage it yourself). A possible place to start would be to look at libmm.
While the specifics are implementation dependent, one piece of information the implementation will need to store is the number of elements in the array. Or if it does not store it directly, it will need to accurately derive it from the block size allocated.
The reason for this because if an array of objects is allocated with new[], when they are deleted with delete[], the destructor of each object in the array will need to be called. delete[] will need to know how many objects to destruct. This is why it is necessary to match new with delete and new[] with delete[].
Let's say I have a pointer allocated to hold 4096 bytes. How would one deallocate the last 1024 bytes in C? What about in C++? What if, instead, I wanted to deallocate the first 1024 bytes, and keep the rest (in both languages)? What about deallocating from the middle (it seems to me that this would require splitting it into two pointers, before and after the deallocated region).
Don't try and second-guess memory management. It's usually cleverer than you ;-)
The only thing you can achieve is the first scenario to 'deallocate' the last 1K
char * foo = malloc(4096);
foo = realloc(foo, 4096-1024);
However, even in this case, there is NO GUARANTEE that "foo" will be unchanged. Your entire 4K may be freed, and realloc() may move your memory elsewhere, thus invalidating any pointers to it that you may hold.
This is valid for both C and C++ - however, use of malloc() in C++ is a bad code smell, and most folk would expect you to use new() to allocate storage. And memory allocated with new() cannot be realloc()ed - or at least, not in any kind of portable way. STL vectors would be a much better approach in C++
If you have n bytes of mallocated memory, you can realloc m bytes (where m < n) and thus throw away the last n-m bytes.
To throw away from the beginning, you can malloc a new, smaller buffer and memcpy the bytes you want and then free the original.
The latter option is also available using C++ new and delete. It can also emulate the first realloc case.
You don't have "a pointer allocated to hold 4096 bytes", you have a pointer to an allocated block of 4096 bytes.
If your block was allocated with malloc(), realloc() will allow you to reduce or increase the size of the block. The start address of the block won't necessarily stay the same, though.
You can't change the start address of a malloc'd memory block, which is really what your second scenario is asking. There's also no way to split a malloc'd block.
This is a limitation of the malloc/calloc/realloc/free API -- and implementations may rely on these limitations (for example, keeping bookkeeping information about the allocation immediately before the start address, which would make moving the start address difficult.)
Now, malloc isn't the only allocator out there -- your platform or libraries might provide other ones, or you could write your own (which gets memory from the system via malloc, mmap, VirtualAlloc or some other mechanism) and then hands it out to your program in whatever fashion you desire.
For C++, if you allocate memory with std::malloc, the information above applies. If you're using new and delete, you're allocating storage for and constructing objects, and so changing the size of an allocated block doesn't make sense -- objects in C++ are a fixed size.
You can make it shorter with realloc(). I don't think the rest is possible.
You can use realloc() to apparently make the memory shorter. Note that for some implementations such a call will actually do nothing. You can't free the first bit of the block and retain the last bit.
If you find yourself needing this kind of functionality, you should consider using a more complex data structure. An array is not the correct answer to every programming problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_(C%2B%2B)
SUMMARY:In contrast to C's realloc, it
is not possible to directly reallocate
memory allocated with new[]. To extend
or reduce the size of a block, one
must allocate a new block of adequate
size, copy over the old memory, and
delete the old block. The C++ standard
library provides a dynamic array that
can be extended or reduced in its
std::vector template.