I'm planning a application that allocates a lot of variables in memory. In difference from another "regular" application, I want this memory be allocated in specific memory blocks of 4096 bytes. My allocated vars must be placed in memory sequentially. One after another, in order to fill the whole allocated memory.
For example, I'm allocating a region (4096 bytes) in memory and this region is ready for my further use. From now, each time that my application creates a new variable in memory (which is probably made in "regular" application with malloc), this variable will be placed in free space in my memory region.
This sequential memory allocation is similare to how an array allocation works. But, in my case, I need an array that will be able to contain many types of data (string, byte, int, ...).
One possible solution is to achieve this is by pointer arithmetics. I want to avoid this method, this may insert a lot of bugs in my application.
Maybe someone solved this problem before?
Thank you!
malloc() by no means guarantees that subsequent allocated blocks are on sequential memory address. Even worse, most implementations use a small number of bytes before and/or after the allocated block for 'housekeeping'. This means that, even if you're lucky that addresses are sequential, there will be small gaps in between the blocks. So the actual allocated blocks are slightly bigger to make space for those 'housekeeping' bytes.
As you suggest, you'll need to write some code yourself and write a few functions with malloc(), realloc(), ... You can hide all the logic in these functions and should not make your application code using these functions more complex compared to using malloc() if it did what you wanted.
Important questions: Why do you need to have these blocks adjacent to each other? What about freeing blocks?
Related
This is just out of curiousity.
For example, let's say we have used up 2 of 8 bytes of memory:
[xx------]
If I call new / malloc requesting for 3 bytes, it should work just fine, perhaps like so:
[xx--xxx-]
What then happens if I call new / malloc requesting for another 3 bytes? In terms of available memory, there are still 3 free bytes, even though they are not contiguous. Will the program then "defragment" memory to make space for the new allocation? Sounds impossible as I would still be holding on to references to the existing allocs.
If so, then by extension to an extreme case, if your memory somehow ends up super fragmented (eg every other byte is allocated ala [x-x-x-x- x-x-x-x-]), does that mean I cannot allocate even 2 bytes despite having 50% memory free?
I don't suppose the platform matters?
Sorry for the extended question, but would this also happen in other languages like Java/C#?
That's right, the memory can get so fragmented that no allocations are possible anymore. A good allocator will merge the released blocks when possible, to limit fragmentation.
The MS .NET managed framework solves this problem by allocating the memory blocks indirectly, i.e. via a pointer to a pointer to a block. This way, a block can be moved to defragment memory, without changing the pointer to the pointer. (Some care is taken by the framework to avoid concurrency problems, because .NET has a garbage collector running asynchronously.)
I've recently come up with an idea of pooling memory in a C++ program with a statically initialized array (ie. "static byte Memory[Size]"). The process of allocating blocks of memory would be similar to calling malloc up front for the pool. I then built this allocator and there seems to be no problems. Is there any issues with this allocator architecture other than limited memory space?
Note: The way I reserve blocks of memory is by creating a linked list of blocks that store size, pointer and neighbors. Not that it is important to the question.
TI's sysbios actually provides an implementation for their microcontrollers that looks similar to what you describe. They call this implementation heapbuf
The heapbuf is a single array that has been split up in n equally sized blocks. The heapbuf also holds the pointer to the first empty block, and every empty block holds the pointer to the next empty element.
This specific implementation is only able to allocate blocks of exactly that size, however has no fragmentation issues. If you have a lot of small objects of roughly the same size, it should offer great performance (as allocation is of constant cost and only requires you to update the pointer to the first empty block).
Your note however, is important to the question. And the issue with blocks of different sizes is as follows:
The first block might not fit, so you need to do a list traversal until you find a large enough open space.
After you have allocated all your memory in blocks of 1k, you decide to free them all and now you have a linked list of many free 1k blocks, have you decided on how to and when to merge them?
The developers of freeRTOS also ran into these issues and therefore provide multiple heaps that take different compromises (eg, fast, but no freeing at all, or a bit slower but no merging of freed blocks, or slow but merging of freed blocks). There is an overview of their implementations here: http://www.freertos.org/a00111.html
The idea is writing a memory manager that allocates a bunch of memory at a time to minimize malloc and free calls, i've tried writing this by my self two times but both times i ran into the problem of defragmenting memory.
You could just check if a block is empty every so often, and if it is empty delete it. But let's say your blocks are 100 bytes each, first you allocate 20 bytes of memory, this will create a new 100 byte block because no blocks exist yet, then you allocate 80 bytes and this fills the first block, then you allocate another 20 bytes and this will create another new block because this first block is full, then you free the second allocation (80 bytes) and that leaves you with two blocks of which only the first 20 bytes are used, this means you have 100 bytes allocated that could be freed by moving the 20 bytes from the second block into the first block and deleting the second block.
These are the problems i ran into:
you can't move the memory around because this means all pointers to that memory will have to be updated, and for that to happen you need to know their addresses, which you don't;
100 bytes is a very small block size, what if i want to store a very low-res (64,64) ARGB image in memory? This will use 16KB of memory and moving all of that might be even slower than just not writing a memory manager at all.
Is it even worth it writing a custom memory manager after all that?
Is it even worth it writing a custom memory manager after all that?
This is asking for an opinion, but I'll try to give a factual answer.
The memory allocators that come with most operating systems and language support libraries are generally very high quality and are designed to address the types of problems you encountered (fragmentation and performance) as well as others. They are about as good as general purpose memory allocators can be.
You can do (a little) better than the provided memory allocator if your application has a particular allocation pattern that can be exploited. That's rare, but you can generally take advantage of it by making something substantially simpler than a general purpose memory manager.
you can't move the memory around
True. Most modern systems don't even try to move memory around--they try to avoid fragmentation to begin with (typically by clustering similarly sized allocations).
Old systems (ones without virtual memory managers) sometimes used memory managers that had an extra layer of indirection. Instead of returning a pointer to the allocated memory, the allocator would return an "handle", which could be as simple as an index into a table maintained by the memory manager. When the user wanted to actually access the memory, they would "lock" it. The memory manager was free to move around memory that wasn't locked (e.g., to eliminate fragmentation) because the handles gave an extra level of indirection.
what if i want to store a very low-res (64,64) ARGB image
Most memory managers provide a range of sizes so a large allocation wouldn't be split across n smaller blocks. Most will punt very large allocations to the system allocator, which, on a virtual memory operating system, can generally solve the problem unless the process address space is overly fragmented.
When memory is allocated in a computer, how does it know which bytes are already occupied and can't be overwritten?
So if these are some bytes of memory that aren't being used:
[0|0|0|0]
How does the computer know whether they are or not? They could just be an integer that equals zero. Or it could be empty memory. How does it know?
That depends on the way the allocation is performed, but it generally involves manipulation of data belonging to the allocation mechanism.
When you allocate some variable in a function, the allocation is performed by decrementing the stack pointer. Via the stack pointer, your program knows that anything below the stack pointer is not allocated to the stack, while anything above the stack pointer is allocated.
When you allocate something via malloc() etc. on the heap, things are similar, but more complicated: all theses allocators have some internal data structures which they never expose to the calling application, but which allow them to select which memory addresses to return on an allocation request. Some malloc() implementation, for instance, use a number of memory pools for small objects of fixed size, and maintain linked lists of free objects for each fixed size which they track. That way, they can quickly pop one memory region of that list, only doing more expensive computations when they run out of regions to satisfy a certain request size.
In any case, each of the allocators have to request memory from the system kernel from time to time. This mechanism always works on complete memory pages (usually 4 kiB), and works via the syscalls brk() and mmap(). Again, the kernel keeps track of which pages are visible in which processes, and at which addresses they are mapped, so there is additional memory allocated inside the kernel for this.
These mappings are made available to the processor via the page tables, which uses them to resolve the virtual memory addresses to the physical addresses. So here, finally, you have some hardware involved in the process, but that is really far, far down in the guts of the mechanics, much below anything that a userspace process is ever able to see. Still, even the page tables are managed by the software of the kernel, not by the hardware, the hardware only interpretes what the software writes into the page tables.
First of all, I have the impression that you believe that there is some unoccupied memory that doesn't holds any value. That's wrong. You can imagine the memory as a very large array when each box contains a value whereas someone put something in it or not. If a memory was never written, then it contains a random value.
Now to answer your question, it's not the computer (meaning the hardware) but the operating system. It holds somewhere in its memory some tables recording which part of the memory are used. Also any byte of memory can be overwriten.
In general, you cannot tell by looking at content of memory at some location whether that portion of memory is used or not. Memory value '0' does not mean the memory is not used.
To tell what portions of memory are used you need some structure to tell you this. For example, you can divide memory into chunks and keep track of which chunks are used and which are not.
There are memory blocks, they have an occupied or not occupied. On the heap, there are very complex data structures which organise it. But the answer to your question is too broad.
I am a student of a system software faculty. Now I'm developing a memory manager for Windows. Here's my simple implementation of malloc() and free():
HANDLE heap = HeapCreate(0, 0, 0);
void* hmalloc(size_t size)
{
return HeapAlloc(heap, 0, size);
}
void hfree(void* memory)
{
HeapFree(heap, 0, memory);
}
int main()
{
int* ptr1 = (int*)hmalloc(100*sizeof(int));
int* ptr2 = (int*)hmalloc(100*sizeof(int));
int* ptr3 = (int*)hmalloc(100*sizeof(int));
hfree(ptr2);
hfree(ptr3);
hfree(ptr1);
return 0;
}
It works fine. But I can't understand is there a reason to use multiple heaps? Well, I can allocate memory in the heap and get the address to an allocated memory chunk. But here I use ONE heap. Is there a reason to use multiple heaps? Maybe for multi-threaded/multi-process applications? Please explain.
The main reason for using multiple heaps/custom allocators are for better memory control. Usually after lots of new/delete's the memory can get fragmented and loose performance for the application (also the app will consume more memory). Using the memory in a more controlled environment can reduce heap fragmentation.
Also another usage is for preventing memory leaks in the application, you could just free the entire heap you allocated and you don't need to bother with freeing all the object allocated there.
Another usage is for tightly allocated objects, if you have for example a list then you could allocate all the nodes in a smaller dedicated heap and the app will gain performance because there will be less cache misses when iterating the nodes.
Edit: memory management is however a hard topic and in some cases it is not done right. Andrei Alexandrescu had a talk at one point and he said that for some application replacing the custom allocator with the default one increased the performance of the application.
This is a good link that elaborates on why you may need multiple heap:
https://caligari.dartmouth.edu/doc/ibmcxx/en_US/doc/libref/concepts/cumemmng.htm
"Why Use Multiple Heaps?
Using a single runtime heap is fine for most programs. However, using multiple
heaps can be more efficient and can help you improve your program's performance
and reduce wasted memory for a number of reasons:
1- When you allocate from a single heap, you may end up with memory blocks on
different pages of memory. For example, you might have a linked list that
allocates memory each time you add a node to the list. If you allocate memory for
other data in between adding nodes, the memory blocks for the nodes could end up
on many different pages. To access the data in the list, the system may have to
swap many pages, which can significantly slow your program.
With multiple heaps, you can specify which heap you allocate from. For example,
you might create a heap specifically for the linked list. The list's memory blocks
and the data they contain would remain close together on fewer pages, reducing the
amount of swapping required.
2- In multithread applications, only one thread can access the heap at a time to
ensure memory is safely allocated and freed. For example, say thread 1 is
allocating memory, and thread 2 has a call to free. Thread 2 must wait until
thread 1 has finished its allocation before it can access the heap. Again, this
can slow down performance, especially if your program does a lot of memory
operations.
If you create a separate heap for each thread, you can allocate from them
concurrently, eliminating both the waiting period and the overhead required to
serialize access to the heap.
3- With a single heap, you must explicitly free each block that you allocate. If you
have a linked list that allocates memory for each node, you have to traverse the
entire list and free each block individually, which can take some time.
If you create a separate heap for that linked list, you can destroy it with a
single call and free all the memory at once.
4- When you have only one heap, all components share it (including the IBM C and
C++ Compilers runtime library, vendor libraries, and your own code). If one
component corrupts the heap, another component might fail. You may have trouble
discovering the cause of the problem and where the heap was damaged.
With multiple heaps, you can create a separate heap for each component, so if
one damages the heap (for example, by using a freed pointer), the others can
continue unaffected. You also know where to look to correct the problem."
A reason would be the scenario that you need to execute a program internally e.g. running simulation code. By creating your own heap you could allow that heap to have execution rights which by default for security reasons is turned off. (Windows)
You have some good thoughts and this'd work for C but in C++ you have destructors, it is VERY important they run.
You can think of all types as having constructors/destructors, just that logically "do nothing".
This is about allocators. See "The buddy algorithm" which uses powers of two to align and re-use stuff.
If I allocate 4 bytes somewhere, my allocator might allocate a 4kb section just for 4 byte allocations. That way I can fit 1024 4 byte things in the block, if I need more add another block and so forth.
Ask it for 4kb and it wont allocate that in the 4byte block, it might have a separate one for larger requests.
This means you can keep big things together. If I go 17 bytes then 13 bytes the 1 byte and the 13byte gets freed, I can only stick something in there of <=13 bytes.
Hence the buddy system and powers of 2, easy to do using lshifts, if I want a 2.5kb block, I allocate it as the smallest power of 2 that'll fit (4kb in this case) that way I can use the slot afterwards for <=4kb items.
This is not for garbage collection, this is just keeping things more compact and neat, using your own allocator can stop calls to the OS (depending on the default implementation of new and delete they might already do this for your compiler) and make new/delete very quick.
Heap-compacting is very different, you need a list of every pointer that points to your heap, or some way to traverse the entire memory graph (like spits Java) so when you move stuff round and "compact" it you can update everything that pointed to that thing to where it currently is.
The only time I ever used more than one heap was when I wrote a program that would build a complicated data structure. It would have been non-trivial to free the data structure by walking through it and freeing the individual nodes, but luckily for me the program only needed the data structure temporarily (while it performed a particular operation), so I used a separate heap for the data structure so that when I no longer needed it, I could free it with one call to HeapDestroy.