Why is memory consumption jumping unpredictably as I step through a program in the gdb debugger? I'm trying to use gdb to find out why a program is using far more memory than it should, and it's not cooperating.
I step through the source code while monitoring process memory usage, but I can't find what line(s) allocate the memory for two reasons:
Reported memory usage only jumps up in increments of (usually, but not always exactly) 64 MB. I suspect I'm seeing the effects of some memory manager I don't know about which reserves 64 MB at a time and masks multiple smaller allocations.
The jump doesn't happen at a consistent location in code. Not only does it occur on different lines during different gdb runs; it also sometimes happens in illogical places like the closing bracket of a (c++) function. Is it possible that gdb itself is affecting memory allocations?
Any ideas/suggestions for more effective tools to help me drill down to the code lines that are really responsible for these memory allocations?
Here's some relevant system info: I'm running x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu version 7.2-64.el6-5.2 on a virtual CentOS Linux machine under Windows. The program is built on a remote server via a complicated build script, so tracking down exactly what options were used at any point is itself a bit of a chore. I'm monitoring memory usage both with the top utility ("virt" or virtual memory column) and by reading the real-time monitoring file /proc/<pid>/status, and they agree. Since this program uses a large suite of third-party libraries, there may be one or more overridden malloc() functions involved somewhere that I don't know about--hunting them down is part of this task.
gdb, left to its own devices, will not affect the memory use of your program, though a run under gdb may differ from a standalone run for other reasons.
However, this also depends on the way you use gdb. If you are just setting simple breakpoints, stepping, and printing things, then you are ok. But sometimes, to evaluate an expression, gdb will allocate memory in the inferior. For example, if you have a breakpoint condition like strcmp(arg, "string") == 0, then gdb will allocate memory for that string constant. There are other cases like this as well.
This answer is in several parts because there were several things going on:
Valgrind with the Massif module (a memory profiler) was much more helpful than gdb for this problem. Sometimes a quick look with the debugger works, sometimes it doesn't. http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/ms-manual.html
top is a poor tool for profiling memory usage because it only reports virtual memory allocations, which in this case were about 3x the actual heap memory usage. Virtual memory is mapped and made available by the Unix kernel when a process asks for a memory block, but it's not necessarily used. The underlying system call is mmap(). I still don't know how to check the block size. top can only tell you what the Unix kernel knows about your memory consumption, which isn't enough to be helpful. Don't use it (or the memory files under /proc/) to do detailed memory profiling.
Memory allocation when stepping out of a function was caused by autolocks--that's a thread lock class whose destructor releases the lock when it goes out of scope. Then a different thread goes into action and allocates some memory, leaving the operator (me) mystified. Non-repeatability is probably because some threads were waiting for external resources like Internet connections.
Related
Currently I analyze a C++ application and its memory consumption. Checking the memory consumption of the process before and after a certain function call is possible. However, it seems that, for technical reasons or for better efficiency the OS (Linux) assigns not only the required number of bytes but always a few more which can be consumed later by the application. This makes it hard to analyze the memory behavior of the application.
Is there a workaround? Can one switch Linux to a mode where it assigns just the required number of bytes/pages?
if you use malloc/new, the allocator will always alloc a little more bytes than you requested , as it needs some room to do its housekeeping, also it may need to align the bytes on pages boundaries. The amount of supplementary bytes allocated is implementation dependent.
you can consider to use tools such as gperftools (google) to monitor the memory used.
I wanted to check a process for memory leeks some years ago.
What I did was the following: I wrote a very small debugger (it is easier than it sounds) that simply set breakpoints to malloc(), free(), mmap(), ... and similar functions (I did that under Windows but under Linux it is simpler - I did it in Linux for another purpose!).
Whenever a breakpoint was reached I logged the function arguments and continued program execution...
By processing the logfile (semi-automated) I could find memory leaks.
Disadvantage: It is not possible to debug the program using another debugger in parallel.
I have quite a complex system, with 30 applications running. One quite complex C++ application was leaking memory, and I think I fixed it.
What I've done so far is:
I executed the application using valgrind's memcheck, and it detected no problems.
I monitored the application using htop, and I noticed that virtual and residual memory is not increasing
I am planing to run valgrind's massif and see if it uses new memory
The question is, how can I make sure there are no leaks? I thought if virtual memory stopped increasing, then I could be sure there are no leaks. When I test my application, I trigger the loop where the memory is allocated and deallocated several times just to make sure.
You can't be sure except you know exactly all the conditions under which the application will allocate new memory. If you can't induce all of these conditions neither valgrind nor htop will guarantee that your application doesn't leak memory under all circumstances.
Yet you should make at least sure that the application doesn't leak memory under normal conditions.
If valgrind doesn't report leaks, there aren't leaks in the sense of memory areas that aren't accessible anymore (during the runs you checked). That doesn't mean that the program doesn't allocate memory, uses it and doesn't free it when it won't use it anymore (but it is still reachable). Think e.g. a the typical to-do stack, you place new items on top, work on the item on top and then push another one. Won't ever go back to the old ones so the memory used for them is wasted, but technically it isn't a leak.
What you can do is to monitor the memory usage by the process. If it steadily increases, you might have a problem there (either a bona fide leak, or some data structure that grows without need).
If this isn't really pressing, it might be cheaper in the long run just letting it be...
You need to use a tool called Valgrind. It is memory debugging, memory leak detection, and profiling tool for Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. Valgrind is a flexible program for debugging and profiling Linux executables.
follow steps..
Just install valgrind
To run...
./a.out arg1 arg2
Now how to Use this command line to turn on the detailed memory leak detector:
valgrind --leak-check=yes ./a.out arg1 arg2
valgrind --leak-check=yes /path/to/myapp arg1 arg2
Or
You can also set logfile:
valgrind --log-file=output.file --leak-check=yes --tool=memcheck ./a.out arg1 arg2
You can check its log for error of memory leak...
cat output.file
Here is my problem: after running a suite of programs, free tells me that after execution there is about 1 GB less memory free. After some searches I found SO: What really happens when you dont free after malloc which (as I understand it) makes clear that missing memory deallocations should not be the problem... (is that correct?)
top does not show any processes that use significant amounts of memory.
How can I find out 'what happend' to the memory, i.e. which program allocated it and why it is not free after program execution?
Where does free collect its information?
(I am running a recent Ubuntu version)
Yes, memory used by your program is freed after your program exits.
The statistics in "free" are confusing, but the fact is that the memory IS available to other programs:
http://kevinclosson.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/linux-free-memory-is-it-free-or-reclaimable-yes-when-i-want-free-memory-i-want-free-memory/
http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/software/linux-kernel/free-mem.html
Here's an event better link:
http://www.linuxatemyram.com/
free (1) is a misnomer, it should more correctly be called unused, because that's what it shows. Or maybe it should be called physicalfree (or, more precisely, the "free" column in the output should be named "unused").
You'll note that "buffers" and "cached" tends to go up as "free" goes down. Memory does not disappear, it just gets assigned to a different "bucket".
The difference between free memory and unused memory is that while both are "free", the unused memory is truly so (no physical memory in use) whereas the simply "free" memory is often moved into the buffer cache. That is for example the case for all executable images and libraries, anything that is read-only or read-execute. If the same file is loaded again later, the "free" page is mapped into the process again and no data must be loaded.
Note that "unused" is actually a bad thing, although it is not immediately obvious (it sounds good, doesn't it?). Free (but physically used) memory serves a purpose, whereas free (unused) memory means you could as well have saved on money for RAM. Therefore, having unused memory (e.g. by purging pages) is exactly what you don't want.
Stunningly, under Windows there exists a lot of "memory optimizer" tools which cost real money and which do just that...
About reclaiming memory, the way this works is easy: The OS simply removes the references to all pages in the working set. If a page is shared with another process, nothing spectacular happens. If it belongs to a non-anonymous mapping and is not writeable (or writeable and not written), it goes into the buffer cache. Otherwise, it goes zap poof.
This removes any memory allocated with malloc as well as the memory used by executables and file mappings, and (since all memory is based on pages) everything else.
It is probably your OS using up that space for its own purposes.
For example, many modern OS's will keep programs loaded in memory after they terminate, in case you want to start them up again. If their guess is right, it saves a lot of time at the cost of some memory that wasn't being used anyway. Some OS's will even speculatively load some commonly used programs.
CPU utilization works the same way. Often your OS will speculatively do some work when the CPU would otherwise be "idle".
When we say a program leaks memory, say a new without a delete in c++, does it really leak? I mean, when the program ends, is that memory still allocated to some non-running program and can't be used, or does the OS know what memory was requested by each program, and release it when the program ends? If I run that program a lot of times, will I run out of memory?
No, in all practical operating systems, when a program exits, all its resources are reclaimed by the OS. Memory leaks become a more serious issue in programs that might continue running for an extended time and/or functions that may be called often from the same program.
On operating systems with protected memory (Mac OS 10+, all Unix-clones such as Linux, and NT-based Windows systems meaning Windows 2000 and younger), the memory gets released when the program ends.
If you run any program often enough without closing it in between (running more and more instances at the same time), you will eventually run out of memory, regardless of whether there is a memory leak or not, so that's also true of programs with memory leaks. Obviously, programs leaking memory will fill the memory faster than an identical program without memory leaks, but how many times you can run it without filling the memory depends much rather on how much memory that program needs for normal operation than whether there's a memory leak or not. That comparison is really not worth anything unless you are comparing two completely identical programs, one with a memory leak and one without.
Memory leaks become the most serious when you have a program running for a very long time. Classic examples of this is server software, such as web servers. With games or spreadsheet programs or word processors, for instance, memory leaks aren't nearly as serious because you close those programs eventually, freeing up the memory. But of course memory leaks are nasty little beasts which should always be tackled as a matter of principle.
But as stated earlier, all modern operating systems release the memory when the program closes, so even with a memory leak, you won't fill up the memory if you're continuously opening and closing the program.
Leaked memory is returned by the OS after the execution has stopped.
That's why it isn't always a big problem with desktop applications, but its a big problem with servers and services (they tend to run long times.).
Lets look at the following scenario:
Program A ask memory from the OS
The OS marks the block X as been used by A and returns it to the program.
The program should have a pointer to X.
The program returns the memory.
The OS marks the block as free. Using the block now results in a access violation.
Program A ends and all memory used by A is marked unused.
Nothing wrong with that.
But if the memory is allocated in a loop and the delete is forgotten, you run into real problems:
Program A ask memory from the OS
The OS marks the block X as been used by A and returns it to the program.
The program should have a pointer to X.
Goto 1
If the OS runs out of memory, the program probably will crash.
No. Once the OS finishes closing the program, the memory comes back (given a reasonably modern OS). The problem is with long-running processes.
When the process ends, the memory gets cleared as well. The problem is that if a program leaks memory, it will requests more and more of the OS to run, and can possibly crash the OS.
It's more leaking in the sense that the code itself has no more grip on the piece of memory.
The OS can release the memory when the program ends. If a leak exists in a program then it is just an issue whilst the program is running. This is a problem for long running programs such as server processes. Or for example, if your web browser had a memory leak and you kept it running for days then it would gradually consume more memory.
As far as I know, on most OS when a program is started it receives a defined segment of memory which will be completely liberated once the program is ended.
Memory leaks are one of the main reason why garbage collector algorithms were invented since, once plugged into the runtime, they become responsible in reclaiming the memory that is no longer accessible by a program.
Memory leaks don't persist past end of execution so a "solution" to any memory leak is to simply end program execution. Obviously this is more of an issue on certain types of software. Having a database server which needs to go offline every 8 hours due to memory leaks is more of an issue than a video game which needs to be restarted after 8 hours of continual play.
The term "leak" refers to the fact that over time memory consumption will grow without any increased benefit. The "leaked" memory is memory neither used by the program nor usable by the OS (and other programs).
Sadly memory leaks are very common in unmanaged code. I have had firefox running for a couple days now and memory usage is 424MB despite only having 4 tabs open. If I closed firefox and re-opened the same tabs memory usage would likely be <100MB. Thus 300+ MB has "leaked".
I've got a memory leak somewhere, but it doesn't appear to be related to my program. I'm making this bold statement based on the fact that once my program terminates, either by seg-faulting, exitting, or aborting, the memory isn't recovered. If my program were the culprit, I would assume the MMU would recover everything, but this doesn't appear to be the case.
My question is:
On a small Linux system (64 Mb Ram) running a program that uses only stack memory and a few calls to malloc(), what causes can I look too see memory being run down and stay down once my program terminates?
A related question is here:
This all started when after code in question was directing its stdout, stderr to a file. After a few hours it aborted with a "Segmentation Fault". A quick (naive?) look at /proc/meminfo showed that there wasn't much available memory, so I assumed something was leaking.
It appears I don't have a memory leak (see here) but it does lead me to some new questions...
It turns out that writing to block devices can use a quite a pile of physical memory; in my system there was only 64 Meg, so writing hundreds of Megs to a USB drive was increasing the cached, active and inactive memory pools quite a bit.
These memory pools are immediately released to the Free memory pool when the device is dismounted.
The exact cause of my segmentation fault remains a small mystery, but I know it's occurence can be reduced by understanding the virtual memory resources better, particularly around the use of Block devices.