We are all taught that you MUST free every pointer that is allocated. I'm a bit curious, though, about the real cost of not freeing memory. In some obvious cases, like when malloc() is called inside a loop or part of a thread execution, it's very important to free so there are no memory leaks. But consider the following two examples:
First, if I have code that's something like this:
int main()
{
char *a = malloc(1024);
/* Do some arbitrary stuff with 'a' (no alloc functions) */
return 0;
}
What's the real result here? My thinking is that the process dies and then the heap space is gone anyway so there's no harm in missing the call to free (however, I do recognize the importance of having it anyway for closure, maintainability, and good practice). Am I right in this thinking?
Second, let's say I have a program that acts a bit like a shell. Users can declare variables like aaa = 123 and those are stored in some dynamic data structure for later use. Clearly, it seems obvious that you'd use some solution that will calls some *alloc function (hashmap, linked list, something like that). For this kind of program, it doesn't make sense to ever free after calling malloc because these variables must be present at all times during the program's execution and there's no good way (that I can see) to implement this with statically allocated space. Is it bad design to have a bunch of memory that's allocated but only freed as part of the process ending? If so, what's the alternative?
Just about every modern operating system will recover all the allocated memory space after a program exits. The only exception I can think of might be something like Palm OS where the program's static storage and runtime memory are pretty much the same thing, so not freeing might cause the program to take up more storage. (I'm only speculating here.)
So generally, there's no harm in it, except the runtime cost of having more storage than you need. Certainly in the example you give, you want to keep the memory for a variable that might be used until it's cleared.
However, it's considered good style to free memory as soon as you don't need it any more, and to free anything you still have around on program exit. It's more of an exercise in knowing what memory you're using, and thinking about whether you still need it. If you don't keep track, you might have memory leaks.
On the other hand, the similar admonition to close your files on exit has a much more concrete result - if you don't, the data you wrote to them might not get flushed, or if they're a temp file, they might not get deleted when you're done. Also, database handles should have their transactions committed and then closed when you're done with them. Similarly, if you're using an object oriented language like C++ or Objective C, not freeing an object when you're done with it will mean the destructor will never get called, and any resources the class is responsible might not get cleaned up.
Yes you are right, your example doesn't do any harm (at least not on most modern operating systems). All the memory allocated by your process will be recovered by the operating system once the process exits.
Source: Allocation and GC Myths (PostScript alert!)
Allocation Myth 4: Non-garbage-collected programs
should always deallocate all memory
they allocate.
The Truth: Omitted
deallocations in frequently executed
code cause growing leaks. They are
rarely acceptable. but Programs that
retain most allocated memory until
program exit often perform better
without any intervening deallocation.
Malloc is much easier to implement if
there is no free.
In most cases, deallocating memory
just before program exit is pointless.
The OS will reclaim it anyway. Free
will touch and page in the dead
objects; the OS won't.
Consequence: Be careful with "leak
detectors" that count allocations.
Some "leaks" are good!
That said, you should really try to avoid all memory leaks!
Second question: your design is ok. If you need to store something until your application exits then its ok to do this with dynamic memory allocation. If you don't know the required size upfront, you can't use statically allocated memory.
=== What about future proofing and code reuse? ===
If you don't write the code to free the objects, then you are limiting the code to only being safe to use when you can depend on the memory being free'd by the process being closed ... i.e. small one-time use projects or "throw-away"[1] projects)... where you know when the process will end.
If you do write the code that free()s all your dynamically allocated memory, then you are future proofing the code and letting others use it in a larger project.
[1] regarding "throw-away" projects. Code used in "Throw-away" projects has a way of not being thrown away. Next thing you know ten years have passed and your "throw-away" code is still being used).
I heard a story about some guy who wrote some code just for fun to make his hardware work better. He said "just a hobby, won't be big and professional". Years later lots of people are using his "hobby" code.
You are correct, no harm is done and it's faster to just exit
There are various reasons for this:
All desktop and server environments simply release the entire memory space on exit(). They are unaware of program-internal data structures such as heaps.
Almost all free() implementations do not ever return memory to the operating system anyway.
More importantly, it's a waste of time when done right before exit(). At exit, memory pages and swap space are simply released. By contrast, a series of free() calls will burn CPU time and can result in disk paging operations, cache misses, and cache evictions.
Regarding the possiblility of future code reuse justifing the certainty of pointless ops: that's a consideration but it's arguably not the Agile way. YAGNI!
I completely disagree with everyone who says OP is correct or there is no harm.
Everyone is talking about a modern and/or legacy OS's.
But what if I'm in an environment where I simply have no OS?
Where there isn't anything?
Imagine now you are using thread styled interrupts and allocate memory.
In the C standard ISO/IEC:9899 is the lifetime of memory stated as:
7.20.3 Memory management functions
1 The order and contiguity of storage allocated by successive calls to the calloc,
malloc, and realloc functions is unspecified. The pointer returned if the allocation
succeeds is suitably aligned so that it may be assigned to a pointer to any type of object
and then used to access such an object or an array of such objects in the space allocated
(until the space is explicitly deallocated). The lifetime of an allocated object extends
from the allocation until the deallocation.[...]
So it has not to be given that the environment is doing the freeing job for you.
Otherwise it would be added to the last sentence: "Or until the program terminates."
So in other words:
Not freeing memory is not just bad practice. It produces non portable and not C conform code.
Which can at least be seen as 'correct, if the following: [...], is supported by environment'.
But in cases where you have no OS at all, no one is doing the job for you
(I know generally you don't allocate and reallocate memory on embedded systems,
but there are cases where you may want to.)
So speaking in general plain C (as which the OP is tagged),
this is simply producing erroneous and non portable code.
I typically free every allocated block once I'm sure that I'm done with it. Today, my program's entry point might be main(int argc, char *argv[]) , but tomorrow it might be foo_entry_point(char **args, struct foo *f) and typed as a function pointer.
So, if that happens, I now have a leak.
Regarding your second question, if my program took input like a=5, I would allocate space for a, or re-allocate the same space on a subsequent a="foo". This would remain allocated until:
The user typed 'unset a'
My cleanup function was entered, either servicing a signal or the user typed 'quit'
I can not think of any modern OS that does not reclaim memory after a process exits. Then again, free() is cheap, why not clean up? As others have said, tools like valgrind are great for spotting leaks that you really do need to worry about. Even though the blocks you example would be labeled as 'still reachable' , its just extra noise in the output when you're trying to ensure you have no leaks.
Another myth is "If its in main(), I don't have to free it", this is incorrect. Consider the following:
char *t;
for (i=0; i < 255; i++) {
t = strdup(foo->name);
let_strtok_eat_away_at(t);
}
If that came prior to forking / daemonizing (and in theory running forever), your program has just leaked an undetermined size of t 255 times.
A good, well written program should always clean up after itself. Free all memory, flush all files, close all descriptors, unlink all temporary files, etc. This cleanup function should be reached upon normal termination, or upon receiving various kinds of fatal signals, unless you want to leave some files laying around so you can detect a crash and resume.
Really, be kind to the poor soul who has to maintain your stuff when you move on to other things .. hand it to them 'valgrind clean' :)
It is completely fine to leave memory unfreed when you exit; malloc() allocates the memory from the memory area called "the heap", and the complete heap of a process is freed when the process exits.
That being said, one reason why people still insist that it is good to free everything before exiting is that memory debuggers (e.g. valgrind on Linux) detect the unfreed blocks as memory leaks, and if you have also "real" memory leaks, it becomes more difficult to spot them if you also get "fake" results at the end.
This code will usually work alright, but consider the problem of code reuse.
You may have written some code snippet which doesn't free allocated memory, it is run in such a way that memory is then automatically reclaimed. Seems allright.
Then someone else copies your snippet into his project in such a way that it is executed one thousand times per second. That person now has a huge memory leak in his program. Not very good in general, usually fatal for a server application.
Code reuse is typical in enterprises. Usually the company owns all the code its employees produce and every department may reuse whatever the company owns. So by writing such "innocently-looking" code you cause potential headache to other people. This may get you fired.
What's the real result here?
Your program leaked the memory. Depending on your OS, it may have been recovered.
Most modern desktop operating systems do recover leaked memory at process termination, making it sadly common to ignore the problem (as can be seen by many other answers here.)
But you are relying on a safety feature not being part of the language, one you should not rely upon. Your code might run on a system where this behaviour does result in a "hard" memory leak, next time.
Your code might end up running in kernel mode, or on vintage / embedded operating systems which do not employ memory protection as a tradeoff. (MMUs take up die space, memory protection costs additional CPU cycles, and it is not too much to ask from a programmer to clean up after himself).
You can use and re-use memory (and other resources) any way you like, but make sure you deallocated all resources before exiting.
If you're using the memory you've allocated, then you're not doing anything wrong. It becomes a problem when you write functions (other than main) that allocate memory without freeing it, and without making it available to the rest of your program. Then your program continues running with that memory allocated to it, but no way of using it. Your program and other running programs are deprived of that memory.
Edit: It's not 100% accurate to say that other running programs are deprived of that memory. The operating system can always let them use it at the expense of swapping your program out to virtual memory (</handwaving>). The point is, though, that if your program frees memory that it isn't using then a virtual memory swap is less likely to be necessary.
There's actually a section in the OSTEP online textbook for an undergraduate course in operating systems which discusses exactly your question.
The relevant section is "Forgetting To Free Memory" in the Memory API chapter on page 6 which gives the following explanation:
In some cases, it may seem like not calling free() is reasonable. For
example, your program is short-lived, and will soon exit; in this case,
when the process dies, the OS will clean up all of its allocated pages and
thus no memory leak will take place per se. While this certainly “works”
(see the aside on page 7), it is probably a bad habit to develop, so be wary
of choosing such a strategy
This excerpt is in the context of introducing the concept of virtual memory. Basically at this point in the book, the authors explain that one of the goals of an operating system is to "virtualize memory," that is, to let every program believe that it has access to a very large memory address space.
Behind the scenes, the operating system will translate "virtual addresses" the user sees to actual addresses pointing to physical memory.
However, sharing resources such as physical memory requires the operating system to keep track of what processes are using it. So if a process terminates, then it is within the capabilities and the design goals of the operating system to reclaim the process's memory so that it can redistribute and share the memory with other processes.
EDIT: The aside mentioned in the excerpt is copied below.
ASIDE: WHY NO MEMORY IS LEAKED ONCE YOUR PROCESS EXITS
When you write a short-lived program, you might allocate some space
using malloc(). The program runs and is about to complete: is there
need to call free() a bunch of times just before exiting? While it seems
wrong not to, no memory will be "lost" in any real sense. The reason is
simple: there are really two levels of memory management in the system.
The first level of memory management is performed by the OS, which
hands out memory to processes when they run, and takes it back when
processes exit (or otherwise die). The second level of management
is within each process, for example within the heap when you call
malloc() and free(). Even if you fail to call free() (and thus leak
memory in the heap), the operating system will reclaim all the memory of
the process (including those pages for code, stack, and, as relevant here,
heap) when the program is finished running. No matter what the state
of your heap in your address space, the OS takes back all of those pages
when the process dies, thus ensuring that no memory is lost despite the
fact that you didn’t free it.
Thus, for short-lived programs, leaking memory often does not cause any
operational problems (though it may be considered poor form). When
you write a long-running server (such as a web server or database management
system, which never exit), leaked memory is a much bigger issue,
and will eventually lead to a crash when the application runs out of
memory. And of course, leaking memory is an even larger issue inside
one particular program: the operating system itself. Showing us once
again: those who write the kernel code have the toughest job of all...
from Page 7 of Memory API chapter of
Operating Systems: Three Easy Pieces
Remzi H. Arpaci-Dusseau and Andrea C. Arpaci-Dusseau
Arpaci-Dusseau Books
March, 2015 (Version 0.90)
There's no real danger in not freeing your variables, but if you assign a pointer to a block of memory to a different block of memory without freeing the first block, the first block is no longer accessible but still takes up space. This is what's called a memory leak, and if you do this with regularity then your process will start to consume more and more memory, taking away system resources from other processes.
If the process is short-lived you can often get away with doing this as all allocated memory is reclaimed by the operating system when the process completes, but I would advise getting in the habit of freeing all memory you have no further use for.
You are correct, memory is automatically freed when the process exits. Some people strive not to do extensive cleanup when the process is terminated, since it will all be relinquished to the operating system. However, while your program is running you should free unused memory. If you don't, you may eventually run out or cause excessive paging if your working set gets too big.
You are absolutely correct in that respect. In small trivial programs where a variable must exist until the death of the program, there is no real benefit to deallocating the memory.
In fact, I had once been involved in a project where each execution of the program was very complex but relatively short-lived, and the decision was to just keep memory allocated and not destabilize the project by making mistakes deallocating it.
That being said, in most programs this is not really an option, or it can lead you to run out of memory.
It depends on the scope of the project that you're working on. In the context of your question, and I mean just your question, then it doesn't matter.
For a further explanation (optional), some scenarios I have noticed from this whole discussion is as follow:
(1) - If you're working in an embedded environment where you cannot rely on the main OS' to reclaim the memory for you, then you should free them since memory leaks can really crash the program if done unnoticed.
(2) - If you're working on a personal project where you won't disclose it to anyone else, then you can skip it (assuming you're using it on the main OS') or include it for "best practices" sake.
(3) - If you're working on a project and plan to have it open source, then you need to do more research into your audience and figure out if freeing the memory would be the better choice.
(4) - If you have a large library and your audience consisted of only the main OS', then you don't need to free it as their OS' will help them to do so. In the meantime, by not freeing, your libraries/program may help to make the overall performance snappier since the program does not have to close every data structure, prolonging the shutdown time (imagine a very slow excruciating wait to shut down your computer before leaving the house...)
I can go on and on specifying which course to take, but it ultimately depends on what you want to achieve with your program. Freeing memory is considered good practice in some cases and not so much in some so it ultimately depends on the specific situation you're in and asking the right questions at the right time. Good luck!
If you're developing an application from scratch, you can make some educated choices about when to call free. Your example program is fine: it allocates memory, maybe you have it work for a few seconds, and then closes, freeing all the resources it claimed.
If you're writing anything else, though -- a server/long-running application, or a library to be used by someone else, you should expect to call free on everything you malloc.
Ignoring the pragmatic side for a second, it's much safer to follow the stricter approach, and force yourself to free everything you malloc. If you're not in the habit of watching for memory leaks whenever you code, you could easily spring a few leaks. So in other words, yes -- you can get away without it; please be careful, though.
If a program forgets to free a few Megabytes before it exits the operating system will free them. But if your program runs for weeks at a time and a loop inside the program forgets to free a few bytes in each iteration you will have a mighty memory leak that will eat up all the available memory in your computer unless you reboot it on a regular basis => even small memory leaks might be bad if the program is used for a seriously big task even if it originally wasn't designed for one.
It depends on the OS environment the program is running in, as others have already noted, and for long running processes, freeing memory and avoiding even very slow leaks is important always. But if the operating system deals with stuff, as Unix has done for example since probably forever, then you don't need to free memory, nor close files (the kernel closes all open file descriptors when a process exits.)
If your program allocates a lot of memory, it may even be beneficial to exit without "hesitation". I find that when I quit Firefox, it spends several !minutes ! paging in gigabytes of memory in many processes. I guess this is due to having to call destructors on C++ objects. This is actually terrible. Some might argue, that this is necessary to save state consistently, but in my opinion, long-running interactive programs like browsers, editors and design programs, just to mention a few, should ensure that any state information, preferences, open windows/pages, documents etc is frequently written to permanent storage, to avoid loss of work in case of a crash. Then this state-saving can be performed again quickly when the user elects to quit, and when completed, the processes should just exit immediately.
All memory allocated for this process will be marked unused by OS then reused, because the memory allocation is done by user space functions.
Imagine OS is a god, and the memories is the materials for creating a wolrd of process, god use some of materials creat a world (or to say OS reserved some of memory and create a process in it). No matter what the creatures in this world have done the materials not belong to this world won't be affected. After this world expired, OS the god, can recycle materials allocated for this world.
Modern OS may have different details on releasing user space memory, but that has to be a basic duty of OS.
I think that your two examples are actually only one: the free() should occur only at the end of the process, which as you point out is useless since the process is terminating.
In you second example though, the only difference is that you allow an undefined number of malloc(), which could lead to running out of memory. The only way to handle the situation is to check the return code of malloc() and act accordingly.
I'm writing an caching app that consumes large amounts of memory.
Hopefully, I'll manage my memory well enough, but I'm just thinking about what
to do if I do run out of memory.
If a call to allocate even a simple object fails, is it likely that even a syslog call
will also fail?
EDIT: Ok perhaps I should clarify the question. If malloc or new returns a NULL or 0L value then it essentially means the call failed and it can't give you the memory for some reason. So, what would be the sensible thing to do in that case?
EDIT2: I've just realised that a call to "new" can throw an exception. This could be caught at a higher level so I can perhaps gracefully exit further up. At that point, it may even be possible to recover depending on how much memory is freed. In the least I should by that point hopefully be able to log something. So while I have seen code that checks the value of a pointer after new, it is unnecessary. While in C, you should check the return value for malloc.
Well, if you are in a case where there is a failure to allocate memory, you're going to get a std::bad_alloc exception. The exception causes the stack of your program to be unwound. In all likelihood, the inner loops of your application logic are not going to be handling out of memory conditions, only higher levels of your application should be doing that. Because the stack is getting unwound, a significant chunk of memory is going to be free'd -- which in fact should be almost all the memory used by your program.
The one exception to this is when you ask for a very large (several hundred MB, for example) chunk of memory which cannot be satisfied. When this happens though, there's usually enough smaller chunks of memory remaining which will allow you to gracefully handle the failure.
Stack unwinding is your friend ;)
EDIT: Just realized that the question was also tagged with C -- if that is the case, then you should be having your functions free their internal structures manually when out of memory conditions are found; not to do so is a memory leak.
EDIT2: Example:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
void DoStuff()
{
std::vector<int> data;
//insert a whole crapload of stuff into data here.
//Assume std::vector::push_back does the actual throwing
//i.e. data.resize(SOME_LARGE_VALUE_HERE);
}
int main()
{
try
{
DoStuff();
return 0;
}
catch (const std::bad_alloc& ex)
{ //Observe that the local variable `data` no longer exists here.
std::cerr << "Oops. Looks like you need to use a 64 bit system (or "
"get a bigger hard disk) for that calculation!";
return -1;
}
}
EDIT3: Okay, according to commenters there are systems out there which do not follow the standard in this regard. On the other hand, on such systems, you're going to be SOL in any case, so I don't see why they merit discussion. But if you are on such a platform, it is something to keep in mind.
Doesn't this question make assumptions regarding overcommitted memory?
I.e., an out of memory situation might not be recoverable! Even if you have no memory left, calls to malloc and other allocators may still succeed until the program attempts to use the memory. Then, BAM!, some process gets killed by the kernel in order to satisfy memory load.
I don't have any specific experience on Linux, but I spent a lot of time working in video games on games consoles, where running out of memory is verboten, and on Windows-based tools.
On a modern OS, you're most likely to run out of address space. Running out of memory, as such, is basically impossible. So just allocate a large buffer, or buffers, on startup, in order to hold all the data you'll ever need, whilst leaving a small amount for the OS. Writing random junk to these regions would probably be a good idea in order to force the OS to actually assign the memory to your process. If your process survives this attempt to use every byte it's asked for, there's some kind of backing now reserved for all of this stuff, so now you're golden.
Write/steal your own memory manager, and direct it to allocate from these buffers. Then use it, consistently, in your app, or take advantage of gcc's --wrap option to forward calls from malloc and friends appropriately. If you use any libraries that can't be directed to call into your memory manager, junk them, because they'll just get in your way. Lack of overridable memory management calls is evidence of deeper-seated issues; you're better of without this particular component. (Note: even if you're using --wrap, trust me, this is still evidence of a problem! Life is too short to use those libraries that don't let you overload their memory management!)
Once you run out of memory, OK, you're screwed, but you've still got that space you left free before, so if freeing up some of the memory you've asked for is too difficult you can (with care) call system calls to write a message to the system log and then terminate, or whatever. Just make sure to avoid calls to the C library, because they'll probably try to allocate some memory when you least expect it -- programmers who work with systems that have virtualised address spaces are notorious for this kind of thing -- and that's the very thing that has caused the problem in the first place.
This approach might sound like a pain in the arse. Well... it is. But it's straightforward, and it's worth putting in a bit of effort for that. I think there's a Kernighan-and/or-Ritche quote about this.
If your application is likely to allocate large blocks of memory and risks hitting the per-process or VM limits, waiting until an allocation actually fails is a difficult situation from which to recover. By the time malloc returns NULL or new throws std::bad_alloc, things may be too far gone to reliably recover. Depending on your recovery strategy, many operations may still require heap allocations themselves, so you have to be extremely careful on which routines you can rely.
Another strategy you may wish to consider is to query the OS and monitor the available memory, proactively managing your allocations. This way you can avoid allocating a large block if you know it is likely to fail, and will thus have a better chance of recovery.
Also, depending on your memory usage patterns, using a custom allocator may give you better results than the standard built-in malloc. For example, certain allocation patterns can actually lead to memory fragmentation over time, so even though you have free memory, the available blocks in the heap arena may not have an available block of the right size. A good example of this is Firefox, which switched to dmalloc and saw a great increase in memory efficiency.
I don't think that capturing the failure of malloc or new will gain you much in your situation. linux allocates large chunks of virtual pages in malloc by means of mmap. By this you may find yourself in a situation where you allocate much more virtual memory than you have (real + swap).
The program then will only fail much later with a segfault (SIGSEGV) when you write to the first page for which there isn't any place in swap. In theory you could test for such situations by writing a signal handler and then dirtying all pages that you allocate.
But usually this will not help much either, since your application will be in a very bad state long before that: constantly swapping, computing mechanically with your harddisk...
It's possible for writes to the syslog to fail in low memory conditions: there's no way to know that for every platform without looking at the source for the relevant functions. They could need dynamic memory to format strings that are passed in, for instance.
Long before you run out of memory, however, you'll start paging stuff to disk. And when that happens, you can forget any performance advantages from caching.
Personally, I'm convinced by the design behind Varnish: the operating system offers services to solve a lot of the relevant problems, and it makes sense to use those services (minor editing):
So what happens with Squid's elaborate memory management is that it gets into fights with the kernel's elaborate memory management ...
Squid creates a HTTP object in RAM and it gets used some times rapidly after creation. Then after some time it get no more hits and the kernel notices this. Then somebody tries to get memory from the kernel for something and the kernel decides to push those unused pages of memory out to swap space and use the (cache-RAM) more sensibly for some data which is actually used by a program. This however, is done without Squid knowing about it. Squid still thinks that these http objects are in RAM, and they will be, the very second it tries to access them, but until then, the RAM is used for something productive. ...
After some time, Squid will also notice that these objects are unused, and it decides to move them to disk so the RAM can be used for more busy data. So Squid goes out, creates a file and then it writes the http objects to the file.
Here we switch to the high-speed camera: Squid calls write(2), the address it gives is a "virtual address" and the kernel has it marked as "not at home". ...
The kernel tries to find a free page, if there are none, it will take a little used page from somewhere, likely another little used Squid object, write it to the paging ... space on the disk (the "swap area") when that write completes, it will read from another place in the paging pool the data it "paged out" into the now unused RAM page, fix up the paging tables, and retry the instruction which failed. ...
So now Squid has the object in a page in RAM and written to the disk two places: one copy in the operating system's paging space and one copy in the filesystem. ...
Here is how Varnish does it:
Varnish allocate some virtual memory, it tells the operating system to back this memory with space from a disk file. When it needs to send the object to a client, it simply refers to that piece of virtual memory and leaves the rest to the kernel.
If/when the kernel decides it needs to use RAM for something else, the page will get written to the backing file and the RAM page reused elsewhere.
When Varnish next time refers to the virtual memory, the operating system will find a RAM page, possibly freeing one, and read the contents in from the backing file.
And that's it. Varnish doesn't really try to control what is cached in RAM and what is not, the kernel has code and hardware support to do a good job at that, and it does a good job.
You may not need to write caching code at all.
As has been stated, exhausting memory means that all bets are off. IMHO the best method of handling this situation is to fail gracefully (as opposed to simply crashing!). Your cache could allocate a reasonable amount of memory on instantiation. The size of this memory would equate to an amount that, when freed, will allow the program to terminate reasonably. When your cache detects that memory is becoming low then it should release this memory and instigate a graceful shutdown.
I'm writing an caching app that consumes large amounts of memory.
Hopefully, I'll manage my memory well enough, but I'm just thinking about what to do if I do run out of memory.
If you are writing deamon which should run 24/7/365, then you should not use dynamic memory management: preallocate all the memory in advance and manage it using some slab allocator/memory pool mechanism. That will also protect you again the heap fragmentation.
If a call to allocate even a simple object fails, is it likely that even a syslog call will also fail?
Should not. This is partially reason why syslog exists as a syscall: that application can report an error independent of its internal state.
If malloc or new returns a NULL or 0L value then it essentially means the call failed and it can't give you the memory for some reason. So, what would be the sensible thing to do in that case?
I generally try in the situations to properly handle the error condition, applying the general error handling rules. If error happens during initialization - terminate with error, probably configuration error. If error happens during request processing - fail the request with out-of-memory error.
For plain heap memory, malloc() returning 0 generally means:
that you have exhausted the heap and unless your application free some memory, further malloc()s wouldn't succeed.
the wrong allocation size: it is quite common coding error to mix signed and unsigned types when calculating block size. If the size ends up mistakenly negative, passed to malloc() where size_t is expected, it becomes very large number.
So in some sense it is also not wrong to abort() to produce the core file which can be analyzed later to see why the malloc() returned 0. Though I prefer to (1) include the attempted allocation size in the error message and (2) try to proceed further. If application would crash due to other memory problem down the road (*), it would produce core file anyway.
(*) From my experience of making software with dynamic memory management resilient to malloc() errors I see that often malloc() returns 0 not reliably. First attempts returning 0 are followed by a successful malloc() returning valid pointer. But first access to the pointed memory would crash the application. This is my experience on both Linux and HP-UX - and I have seen similar pattern on Solaris 10 too. The behavior isn't unique to Linux. To my knowledge the only way to make an application 100% resilient to memory problems is to preallocate all memory in advance. And that is mandatory for mission critical, safety, life support and carrier grade applications - they are not allowed dynamic memory management past initialization phase.
I don't know why many of the sensible answers are voted down. In most server environments, running out of memory means that you have a leak somewhere, and that it makes little sense to 'free some memory and try to go on'. The nature of C++ and especially the standard library is that it requires allocations all the time. If you are lucky, you might be able to free some memory and execute a clean shutdown, or at least emit a warning.
It is however far more likely that you won't be able to do a thing, unless the allocation that failed was a huge one, and there is still memory available for 'normal' things.
Dan Bernstein is one of the very few guys I know that can implement server software that operates in memory constrained situations.
For most of the rest of us, we should probably design our software that it leaves things in a useful state when it bails out because of an out of memory error.
Unless you are some kind of brain surgeon, there isn't a lot else to do.
Also, very often you won't even get an std::bad_alloc or something like that, you'll just get a pointer in return to your malloc/new, and only die when you actually try to touch all of that memory. This can be prevented by turning off overcommit in the operating system, but still.
Don't count on being able to deal with the SIGSEGV when you touch memory that the kernel hoped you wouldn't be.. I'm not quite sure how this works on the windows side of things, but I bet they do overcommit too.
All in all, this is not one of C++'s strong spots.
I am running my c++ application on an intel Xscale device. The problem is, when I run my application offtarget (Ubuntu) with Valgrind, it does not show any memory leaks.
But when I run it on the target system, it starts with 50K free memory, and reduces to 2K overnight. How to catch this kind of leakage, which is not being shown by Valgrind?
A common culprit with these small embedded deviecs is memory fragmentation. You might have free memory in your application between 2 objects. A common solution to this is the use of a dedicated allocator (operator new in C++) for the most common classes. Memory pools used purely for objects of size N don't fragment - the space between two objects will always be a multiple of N.
It might not be an actual memory leak, but maybe a situation of increasing memory usage. For example it could be allocating a continually increasing string:
string s;
for (i=0; i<n; i++)
s += "a";
50k isn't that much, maybe you should go over your source by hand and see what might be causing the issue.
This may be not a leak, but just the runtime heap not releasing memory to the operating system. This can also be fragmentation.
Possible ways to overcome this:
Split into two applications. The master application will have the simple logic with little or no dynamic memory usage. It will start the worker application to actually do work in such chunks that the worker application will not run out of memory and will restart that application periodically. This way memory is periodically returned to the operating system.
Write your own memory allocator. For example you can allocate a dedicated heap and only allocate memory from there, then free the dedicated heap entirely. This requires the operating system to support multiple heaps.
Also note that it's possible that your program runs differently on Ubuntu and on the target system and therefore different execution paths are taken and the code resulting in memory leaks is executed on the target system, but not on Ubuntu.
This does sounds like fragmentation. Fragmentation is caused by you allocating objects on the stack, say:
object1
object2
object3
object4
And then deleting some objects
object1
object3
object4
You now have a hole in the memory that is unused. If you allocate another object that's too big for the hole, the hole will remain wasted. Eventually with enough memory churn, you can end up with so many holes that they waste you memory.
The way around this is to try and decide your memory requirements up front. If you've got particular objects that you know you are creating many of, try and ensure they're the same size.
You can use a pool to make the allocations more efficient for a particular class... or at least let you track it better so you can understand what's going on and come up with a good solution.
One way of doing this is to create a single static:
struct Slot
{
Slot() : free(true) {}
bool free;
BYTE data[20]; // you'll need to tune the value 20 to what your program needs
};
Slot pool[500]; // you'll need to pick a good pool size too.
Create the pool up front when your program starts and pre-allocate it so that it is as big as the maximum requirements for your program. You may want to HeapAlloc it (or the equivalent in your OS so that you can control when it appears from somewhere in you application startup).
Then override the new and delete operators for a suspect class so that they return slots from this vector. So, your objects will be stored in this vector.
You can override new and delete for classes of the same size to be put in this vector.
Create pools of different sizes for different objects.
Just go for the worst offenders at first.
I've done something like this before and it solved my problem on an embedded device. I also was using a lot of STL, so I created a custom allocator (google for stl custom allocator - there are loads of links). This was useful for records stored in a mini-database my program used.
If your memory usage goes down, i don't think it can be defined as a memory leak.
Where are you getting reports of memory usage ? The system might just have put most of your program's memory use in virtual memory.
All i can add is that Valgrind is known to be pretty efficient at finding memory leaks !
Also, are you sure when you profiled your code, the code-coverage was enough to cover all the code-paths which might be executed on target platform?
Valgrind for sure does not lie. As has been pointed out, this might indeed be the runtime heap not releasing the memory, but i would think otherwise.
Are you using any sophisticated technique to track the scope of object..?
if yes, than valgrind is not smart enough, Though you can try by setting xscale related option with valgrind
Most applications show a pattern of memory use like this:
they use very little when they start
as they create data structures they use more and more
as they start deleting old data structures or reusing existing ones, they reach a steady state where memory use stays roughly constant
If your app is continuosly increasing in size, you may have aleak. If it increases in sizze over aperiod and then reaches arelatively steady state, you probably don't.
You can use the massif tool from Valgrind, which will show you where the most memory is allocated and how it evolves over time.