Related
Suppose that an object on the heap goes out of scope. Why can't the program free the memory right after the scope ends? Or, if we have a pointer to an object that is replaced by the address to a new object, why can't the program deallocate the old one before assigning the new one? I'm guessing that it's faster not to free it immediately and instead have the freeing be done asynchronously at a later point in time, but I'm not really sure.
Why is garbage collection necessary?
It is not strictly necessary. Given enough time and effort you can always translate a program that depends on garbage collection to one that doesn't.
In general, garbage collection involves a trade-off.
On the one hand, garbage collection allows you to write an application without worrying about the details of memory allocation and deallocation. (And the pain of debugging crashes and memory leaks caused by getting the deallocation logic wrong.)
The downside of garbage collection is that you need more memory. A typical garbage collector is not efficient if it doesn't have plenty of spare space1.
By contrast, if you do manual memory management, you can code your application to free up heap objects as soon as they are no longer used. Furthermore, you don't get awkward "pauses" while the GC is doing its thing.
The downside of manual memory management is that you have to write the code that decides when to call free, and you have to get it correct. Furthermore, if you try to manage memory by reference counting:
you have the cost of incrementing and decrementing ref counts whenever pointers are assign or variables go out of scope,
you have to deal with cycles in your data structures, and
it is worse when your application is multi-threaded and you have to deal with memory caches, synchronization, etc.
For what it is worth, if you use a decent garbage collector and tune it appropriately (e.g. give it enough memory, etc) then the CPU costs of GC and manual storage management are comparable when you apply them to a large application.
Reference:
"The measured cost of conservative garbage collection" by Benjamin Zorn
1 - This is because the main cost of a modern collector is in traversing and dealing with the non-garbage objects. If there is not a lot of garbage because you are being miserly with the heap space, the GC does a lot of work for little return. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/2414621/139985 for an analysis.
It's more complicated, but
1) what if there is memory pressure before the scope is over? Scope is only a language notion, not related to reachability. So an object can be "freed" before it goes out of scope ( java GCs do that on regular basis). Also, if you free objects after each scope is done, you might be doing too little work too often
2) As far as the references go, you are not considering that the reference might have hierarchies and when you change one, there has to be code that traverses those. It might not be the right time to do it when that happens.
In general, there is nothing wrong with such a proposal that you describer, as a matter of fact this is almost exactly how Rust programming language works, from a high level point of view.
Some newer languages are implementing ARC into their compilers (Swift and Rust, to name a couple). As I understand this achieves the same thing as runtime GC (taking the burden of manual deallocation away from the programmer), while being significantly more efficient.
I understand that ARC could become a complex process, but with the complexity of modern garbage collectors it seems like it would be no more complex to implement ARC. However, there are still tons of languages and frameworks using GC for memory management, and even the Go language, which targets systems programming, uses GC.
I really cannot understand why GC would be preferable to ARC. Am I missing something here?
There's a bunch of tradeoffs involved here, it's a complex topic. Here's the big ones though:
GC pros:
Tracing garbage collectors can handle cycles in object graphs. Automatic reference counting will leak memory unless cycles are manually broken either by removing a reference or figuring out which edge of the graph should be weak. This is quite a common problem in practice in reference counted apps.
Tracing garbage collectors can actually be moderately faster (in terms of throughput) than reference counting, by doing work concurrently, by batching work up, by deferring work, and by not messing up caches touching reference counts in hot loops.
Copying collectors can compact the heap, reclaiming fragmented pages to reduce footprint
ARC pros:
Because object destruction happens immediately when the reference count hits 0, object lifetimes can be used to manage non-memory resources. With garbage collection, lifetimes are non-deterministic, so this isn't safe.
Collection work is typically more spread out, resulting in much shorter pauses (it's still possible to get a pause if you deallocate a large subgraph of objects)
Because memory is collected synchronously, it's not possible to "outrun the collector" by allocating faster than it can clean up. This is particularly important when VM paging comes into play, since there are degenerate cases where the GC thread hits a page that's been paged out, and falls far behind.
On a related note, tracing garbage collectors have to walk the entire object graph, which forces unnecessary page-ins (there are mitigations for this like https://people.cs.umass.edu/~emery/pubs/f034-hertz.pdf, but they're not widely deployed)
Tracing garbage collectors typically need more "scratch space" than reference counting if they want to hit their full throughput
My personal take on this is that the only two points that really matter for most cases are:
ARC doesn't collect cycles
GC doesn't have deterministic lifetimes
I feel that both of these issues are deal breakers, but in the absence of a better idea, you just have to pick which horrifying problem sounds worse to you.
Could anyone point me to a good source on how to implement garbage collection? I am making a lisp-like interpreted language. It currently uses reference counting, but of course that fails at freeing circularly dependent objects.
I've been reading of mark and sweep, tricolor marking, moving and nonmoving, incremental and stop-the-world, but... I don't know what the best way to keep the objects neatly separated into sets while keeping per-object memory overhead at a minimum, or how to do things incrementally.
I've read some languages with reference counting use circular reference detection, which I could use. I am aware I could use freely available collectors like Boehm, but I would like to learn how to do it myself.
I would appreciate any online material with some sort of tutorial or help for people with no experience on the topic like myself.
Could anyone point me to a good source on how to implement garbage collection?
There's a lot of advanced material about garbage collection out there. The Garbage Collection Handbook is great. But I found there was precious little basic introductory information so I wrote some articles about it. Prototyping a mark-sweep garbage collector describes a minimal mark-sweep GC written in F#. The Very Concurrent Garbage Collector describes a more advanced concurrent collector. HLVM is a virtual machine I wrote that includes a stop-the-world collector that handles threading.
The simplest way to implement a garbage collector is:
Make sure you can collate the global roots. These are the local and global variables that contain references into the heap. For local variables, push them on to a shadow stack for the duration of their scope.
Make sure you can traverse the heap, e.g. every value in the heap is an object that implements a Visit method that returns all of the references from that object.
Keep the set of all allocated values.
Allocate by calling malloc and inserting the pointer into the set of all allocated values.
When the total size of all allocated values exceeds a quota, kick off the mark and then sweep phases. This recursively traverses the heap accumulating the set of all reachable values.
The set difference of the allocated values minus the reachable values is the set of unreachable values. Iterate over them calling free and removing them from the set of allocated values.
Set the quota to twice the total size of all allocated values.
Check out the following page. It has many links. http://lua-users.org/wiki/GarbageCollection
As suggested by delnan, I started with a very naïve stop-the-world tri-color mark and sweep algorithm. I managed to keep the objects in the sets by making them linked-list nodes, but it does add a lot of data to each object (the virtual pointer, two pointers to nodes, one enum to hold the color). It works perfectly, no memory lost on valgrind :) From here I might try to add a free list for recycling, or some sort of thing that detects when it is convenient to stop the world, or an incremental approach, or a special allocator to avoid fragmentation, or something else. If you can point me where to find info or advice (I don't know whether you can comment on an answered question) on how to do these things or what to do, I'd be very thankful. I'll be checking Lua's GC in the meantime.
I have implemented a Cheney-style copying garbage collector in C in about 400 SLOC. I did it for a statically-typed language and, to my surprise, the harder part was actually communicating the information which things are pointers and which things aren't. In a dynamically typed language this is probably easier since you must already use some form of tagging scheme.
There also is a new version of the standard book on garbage collection coming out: "The Garbage Collection Handbook: The Art of Automatic Memory Management" by Jones, Hosking, Moss. (The Amazon UK site says 19 Aug 2011.)
One thing I haven't yet seen mentioned is the use of memory handles. One may avoid the need to double-up on memory (as would be needed with the Cheney-style copying algorithm) if each object reference is a pointer to a structure which contains the real address of the object in question. Using handles for memory objects will make certain routines a little slower (one must reread the memory address of an object any time something might have happened that would move it) but for single-threaded systems where garbage collection will only happen at predictable times, this isn't too much of a problem and doesn't require special compiler support (multi-threaded GC systems will are likely to require compiler-generated metadata whether they use handles or direct pointers).
If one uses handles, and uses one linked list for live handles (the same storage can be used to hold a linked list for dead handles needing reallocation), one can, after marking the master record for each handle, proceed through the list of handles, in allocation order, and copy the block referred to by that handle to the beginning of the heap. Because handles will be copied in order, there will be no need to use a second heap area. Further, generations may be supported by keeping track of some top-of-heap pointers. When compactifying memory, start by just compactifying items added since the last GC. If that doesn't free up enough space, compactify items added since the last level 1 GC. If that doesn't free up enough space, compactify everything. The marking phase would probably have to act upon objects of all generations, but the expensive compactifying stage would not.
Actually, using a handle-based approach, if one is marking things of all generations, one could if desired compute on each GC pass the amount of space that could be freed in each generation. If half the objects in Gen2 are dead, it may be worthwhile to do a Gen2 collection so as to reduce the frequency of Gen1 collections.
Garbage collection implementation in Lisp
Building LISP | http://www.lwh.jp/lisp/
Arcadia | https://github.com/kimtg/arcadia
Read Memory Management: Algorithms and Implementations in C/C++. It's a good place to start.
I'm doing similar work for my postscript interpreter. more info via my question. I agree with Delnan's comment that a simple mark-sweep algorithm is a good place to start. You'll need functions to set-mark, check-mark, clear-mark, and iterators for all your containers. One easy optimization is to clear-mark whenever allocating a new object, and clear-mark during the sweep; otherwise you'll need an entire pass to clear marks before you start setting them.
Garbage collection involves walking through a list of allocated objects (either all objects or objects in a particular generation) and determining which are reachable.
How is this list maintained? Do runtimes for GC languages keep a giant list of all objects?
Also, from what I understand, GC involves walking the call stack to look for object references - how does the algorithm distinguish between GC-able pointers and primitive data?
The memory management system keeps track of the size of each allocated object, just like it does in C or C++. One way this is commonly done is for the memory management system to allocate an extra size_t before each allocation, that keeps track of the size of each objecct. The memory manager likewise has to keep track of the size of each free block, so that it can reuse blocks to allocate them.
The garbage collector works in two phases: the mark phase, and the sweep phase. In the mark phase, the garbage collector starts walks object references in order to find objects that are still reachable. The garbage collector starts at a few basic places where the object references are stored and given names (the stack, and global storage, and static storage), and then traverses references in the objects.
In the sweep phase, the garbage collector walks the heap from bottom to top, jumping from allocation to allocation based on those size_ts, and frees anything that isn't marked.
Some languages (like Ruby) tag all of the primitives so that they can be identified separately from the object references at runtime. Other garbage collectors are ver conservative and follow primatives as through they were object references (though some checks must be performed to make sure that the garbage collector doesn't stick a mark in the middle of some other object). Still other languages use runtime type information to be more precise about whether they follow primatives.
Ruby's garbage collector sometimes called "conservative" because it doesn't check whether the space on the stack is actually being used, so it sometimes keeps dead objects alive by following ghost references on the stack. But since it always knows exactly whether the data it's looking at is a reference or a primative, I don't call it conservative here.
Garbage collection involves walking through a list of allocated objects (either all objects or objects in a particular generation) and determining which are reachable.
Not really. GCs are categorized into tracing and reference counting (see A unified theory of garbage collection). Tracing GCs start from a set of global roots and trace all objects reachable from them. Reference counting GCs count the number of references to each object and reclaim it when the count reaches zero. Neither require a list including unreachable objects.
How is this list maintained? Do runtimes for GC languages keep a giant list of all objects?
Pedagogical solutions like the one in HLVM can keep a list of all objects because it is simple but this is rare.
Also, from what I understand, GC involves walking the call stack to look for object references - how does the algorithm distinguish between GC-able pointers and primitive data?
Again, there are many different strategies. Conservative GCs are unable to distinguish between pointers and non-pointers so they conservatively consider that non-pointers might be pointers. Pedagogical GCs like the one in HLVM can use algorithms like Henderson's Accurate GC in an uncooperative environment. Production GCs store enough information in the OS thread stack to determine exactly which words are pointers (and which stack frames to skip because they are not affiliated with managed code) and then use a stack walker to find them.
Note that you also have to find local references held in registers as well as on the stack.
This site ( How Java’s Garbage Collector Works? ) has a good, brief explanation on how garbage collectors work, not just the default Java one.
I've heard and experienced it myself: Lua's garbage collector can cause serious FPS drops in games as their scripted part grows.
This is as I found out related to the garbage collector, where for example every Vector() userdata object created temporarily lies around until getting garbage collected.
I know that Python uses reference counting, and that is why it doesn't need any huge, performance eating steps like Luas GC has to do.
Why doesn't Lua use reference counting to get rid of garbage?
Because reference counting garbage collectors can easily leak objects.
Trivial example: a doubly-linked list. Each node has a pointer to the next node - and is itself pointed to by the next one. If you just un-reference the list itself and expect it to be collected, you just leaked the entire list - none of the nodes have a reference count of zero, and hence they'll all keep each other alive. With a reference counting garbage collector, any time you have a cyclic object, you basically need to treat that as an unmanaged object and explicitly dispose of it yourself when you're finished.
Note that Python uses a proper garbage collector in addition to reference counting.
While others have explained why you need a garbage collector, keep in mind that you can configure the garbage collection cycles in Lua to either be smaller, less frequent, or on demand. If you have a lot of memory allocated and are busy drawing frames, then make the thresholds very large to avoid a collection cycle until there is a break in the game.
Lua 5.1 Manual on garbage collection
Reference Counting alone is not enough for a garbage collector to work correctly because it does not detect cycles. Even Python does not use reference counting alone.
Imagine that objects A and B each hold a reference to each other. Even once you, the programmer no longer hold a reference to either object, reference counting will still say that objects A and B have references pointing to them.
There are many different garbage collecting schemes out there and some will work better in some circumstances and some will work better in other circumstances. It is up to the language designers to try and choose a garbage collector that they think will work best for their language.
What version of Lua is being used in the games you are basing this claim on? When World of Warcraft switched from Lua 5.0 to 5.1, all the performance issues caused by garbage collection were severely diminished.
With Lua 5.0's garbage collection, the amount of time spent collecting garbage (and blocking anything else from happening at the same time) was proportional to the amount of memory currently in use, leading to lots of effort to minimize the memory usage of WoW addons.
With Lua 5.1's garbage collection, the collector changed to being incremental so it doesn't lock up the game while collecting garbage like it previously did. Now garbage collection has a very minimal impact on performance compared to the larger issue of horribly inefficient code in the majority of user created addons.
In general, reference counting isn't an exact substitute for garbage collection because of the potential of circular references. You might want to read this page on why garbage collection is preferred to reference counting.
You might also be interested in the Lua Gem about optimization which also has a part that handles garbage collection.
Take a look at some of the CPython sources. A good portion of the C code is Py_DECREF and Py_INCREF. That nasty, tedious and error-prone book keeping just goes away in Lua.
If required, there's nothing to stop you writing Lua modules in C that manage any heavy, private allocations manually.
It's a tradeoff. People have explained some reasons some languages (this really has nothing to do with Lua) use collectors, but haven't touched on the drawbacks.
Some languages, notably ObjC, use reference counting exclusively. The huge advantage of this is that deallocation is deterministic--as soon as you let go of the last reference, it's guaranteed that the object will be freed immediately. This is critical when you have memory constraints. With Lua's allocator, if memory constraints require predictable deallocation, you have to add methods to force the underlying storage to be freed immediately, which defeats the point of having garbage collection.
"WuHoUnited" is wrong in saying you can't do this--it works extremely well with ObjC on iOS, and with shared_ptr in C++. You just have to understand the environment you're in, to avoid cycles or break them when necessary.