Ok I asked this the other day. But the answers I recieved when asked made me realize I was not fit to question it yet until I did some hard research.
So here I am yet again to retry this....
In examples of malloc I seen something as such...
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int ptr_doe;
ptr_doe = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int));
}
I read that it was not neccesary for the:
(this *) malloc(sizeof(int));
And that only
(int *) malloc(sizeof(\\this));
is neccesary. Is the casting before calling the malloc function ever neccesary?
And how do we know how much memory we need to allocate and what the hell is this?
malloc(10 * sizeof(int));
is it multiplying 4 bytes by 10? and when is it neccesary to use malloc? How does it work internally? Thanks for any help guys
1.
Is the casting before calling the malloc function ever neccesary?
If you use a currect compiler, No. See answers to Do I cast the result of malloc?
2.
how do we know how much memory we need to allocate
It depends on your needs.
3.
malloc(10 * sizeof(int));
means to allocate memory big enough to store 10 int value.
4.
is it multiplying 4 bytes by 10?
If sizeof(int) equals 4, yes.
5.
when is it neccesary to use malloc?
If only at runtime you can know how much memory your program needs.
6.
How does it work internally?
Briefly, malloc() will ask operating system for enough memory, record some information it needs, and return you a pointer to the start of that memory segment.
Related
I am new to C++ and also in MPI programming. I have confused about this code block in C++
int count;
count=4;
local_array=(int*)malloc(count*sizeof(int));
Why are we using sizeof(int) here in MPI programming?
I could see that you're trying to allocate 4 ints here.
If you look at malloc's signature, it takes the number of bytes for its first parameter. As stated here, int data type takes 4 bytes.
Therefore, if you want 4 ints, you could have typed local_array=(int*)malloc(count*4);. But not everyone remembers that int actualy takes 4 bytes. That's why you use sizeof to find out the actual size of the object or type.
When you have a dynamically allocated buffer that varies its size at runtime in unpredictable ways (for example a vector or a string) one way to optimize its allocation is to only resize its backing store on powers of 2 (or some other set of boundaries/thresholds), and leave the extra space unused. This helps to amortize the cost of searching for new free memory and copying the data across, at the expense of a little extra memory use. For example the interface specification (reserve vs resize vs trim) of many C++ stl containers have such a scheme in mind.
My question is does the default implementation of the malloc/realloc/free memory manager on Linux 3.0 x86_64, GLIBC 2.13, GCC 4.6 (Ubuntu 11.10) have such an optimization?
void* p = malloc(N);
... // time passes, stuff happens
void* q = realloc(p,M);
Put another way, for what values of N and M (or in what other circumstances) will p == q?
From the realloc implementation in glibc trunk at http://sources.redhat.com/git/gitweb.cgi?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=malloc/malloc.c;h=12d2211b0d6603ac27840d6f629071d1c78586fe;hb=HEAD
First, if the memory has been obtained via mmap() instead of sbrk(), which glibc malloc does for large requests, >= 128 kB by default IIRC:
if (chunk_is_mmapped(oldp))
{
void* newmem;
#if HAVE_MREMAP
newp = mremap_chunk(oldp, nb);
if(newp) return chunk2mem(newp);
#endif
/* Note the extra SIZE_SZ overhead. */
if(oldsize - SIZE_SZ >= nb) return oldmem; /* do nothing */
/* Must alloc, copy, free. */
newmem = public_mALLOc(bytes);
if (newmem == 0) return 0; /* propagate failure */
MALLOC_COPY(newmem, oldmem, oldsize - 2*SIZE_SZ);
munmap_chunk(oldp);
return newmem;
}
(Linux has mremap(), so in practice this is what is done).
For smaller requests, a few lines below we have
newp = _int_realloc(ar_ptr, oldp, oldsize, nb);
where _int_realloc is a bit big to copy-paste here, but you'll find it starting at line 4221 in the link above. AFAICS, it does NOT do the constant factor optimization increase that e.g. the C++ std::vector does, but rather allocates exactly the amount requested by the user (rounded up to the next chunk boundaries + alignment stuff and so on).
I suppose the idea is that if the user wants this factor of 2 size increase (or any other constant factor increase in order to guarantee logarithmic efficiency when resizing multiple times), then the user can implement it himself on top of the facility provided by the C library.
Perhaps you can use malloc_usable_size (google for it) to find the answer experimentally. This function, however, seems undocumented, so you will need to check out if it is still available at your platform.
See also How to find how much space is allocated by a call to malloc()?
i am trying to put a head-tag and a foot tag inside struct malloc_chunk, like this:
struct malloc_shunk {
INTERNAL_SIZE prev_size;
INTERNAL_SIZE size;
}
Here is what i did:
1.
struct malloc_shunk {
INTERNAL_SIZE foot_tag;
INTERNAL_SIZE prev_size;
INTERNAL_SIZE size;
}
before putting the head_tag inside malloc_chunk, i just added foot_tag only and compiled glibc. I made a small test program that mallocs 60 bytes from the system and then frees it. Thou i can see that the malloc returned properly, free complained, saying "invalid pointer". The pointer malloc returned was 0x9313010. That makes the pointer to the start of malloc_chunk to be 0x9313004.
So when the free is passed 0x9313010, it converts it to 0x9313004 through (mem2chunk) and the check it for alignment. Since my wordsize is 4, alignment check with 0x9313010 is where i am getting problems. Can you please tell me if the Mem pointer (returned by malloc) needs to be absolutely double-word aligned. (as here it may not satisfy that criterion, as difference betwwen the pointer returned by malloc and start of chunk will be 12 bytes here and not 8).
To ever come 1. issue , i just added 1 head-tag to the structure so that it becomes
struct malloc_shunk {
INTERNAL_SIZE foot_tag;
INTERNAL_SIZE prev_size;
INTERNAL_SIZE size;
INTERNAL_SIZE head_tag;
}
Now the difference betwwen the pointer returned by malloc and start of chunk will be 16 which will always be double word aligned. But Here i am facing a bigger problem as the time when first malloc is called the arena is setup and bins are initallised. The size of the victim here is not coming out to be zero as it should be in normal cases. The problem is that the victim->size is actually comes out to be the place where 'top' is stored rather than 'last_remainder'. i'd like to ask for you opinion if there is any other way/workaround/solution, so that i can over come this initialization of arena issue i am currently facing.
Thanks and Regards,
Kapil
From what ever i have learnt, try not to modify the structure malloc_chunk. Even if you have to then make sure that the top pointer is initially 0 otherwise heap will never be formed. Its the sYSMALLOC() function in _int_malloc() that first MMAPs a bigger chunk from kernel. It will be invoked only if the top is 0 initially.
On i386 linux. Preferably in c/(c/posix std libs)/proc if possible. If not is there any piece of assembly or third party library that can do this?
Edit: I'm trying to develop test whether a kernel module clear a cache line or the whole proccesor(with wbinvd()). Program runs as root but I'd prefer to stay in user space if possible.
Cache coherent systems do their utmost to hide such things from you. I think you will have to observe it indirectly, either by using performance counting registers to detect cache misses or by carefully measuring the time to read a memory location with a high resolution timer.
This program works on my x86_64 box to demonstrate the effects of clflush. It times how long it takes to read a global variable using rdtsc. Being a single instruction tied directly to the CPU clock makes direct use of rdtsc ideal for this.
Here is the output:
took 81 ticks
took 81 ticks
flush: took 387 ticks
took 72 ticks
You see 3 trials: The first ensures i is in the cache (which it is, because it was just zeroed as part of BSS), the second is a read of i that should be in the cache. Then clflush kicks i out of the cache (along with its neighbors) and shows that re-reading it takes significantly longer. A final read verifies it is back in the cache. The results are very reproducible and the difference is substantial enough to easily see the cache misses. If you cared to calibrate the overhead of rdtsc() you could make the difference even more pronounced.
If you can't read the memory address you want to test (although even mmap of /dev/mem should work for these purposes) you may be able to infer what you want if you know the cacheline size and associativity of the cache. Then you can use accessible memory locations to probe the activity in the set you're interested in.
Source code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
inline void
clflush(volatile void *p)
{
asm volatile ("clflush (%0)" :: "r"(p));
}
inline uint64_t
rdtsc()
{
unsigned long a, d;
asm volatile ("rdtsc" : "=a" (a), "=d" (d));
return a | ((uint64_t)d << 32);
}
volatile int i;
inline void
test()
{
uint64_t start, end;
volatile int j;
start = rdtsc();
j = i;
end = rdtsc();
printf("took %lu ticks\n", end - start);
}
int
main(int ac, char **av)
{
test();
test();
printf("flush: ");
clflush(&i);
test();
test();
return 0;
}
I dont know of any generic command to get the the cache state, but there are ways:
I guess this is the easiest: If you got your kernel module, just disassemble it and look for cache invalidation / flushing commands (atm. just 3 came to my mind: WBINDVD, CLFLUSH, INVD).
You just said it is for i386, but I guess you dont mean a 80386. The problem is that there are many different with different extension and features. E.g. the newest Intel series has some performance/profiling registers for the cache system included, which you can use to evalute cache misses/hits/number of transfers and similar.
Similar to 2, very depending on the system you got. But when you have a multiprocessor configuration you could watch the first cache coherence protocol (MESI) with the 2nd.
You mentioned WBINVD - afaik that will always flush complete, i.e. all, cache lines
It may not be an answer to your specific question, but have you tried using a cache profiler such as Cachegrind? It can only be used to profile userspace code, but you might be able to use it nonetheless, by e.g. moving the code of your function to userspace if it does not depend on any kernel-specific interfaces.
It might actually be more effective than trying to ask the processor for information that may or may not exist and that will be probably affected by your mere asking about it - yes, Heisenberg was way before his time :-)
I'm looking for an equivalent of LWARX and STWCX (as found on the PowerPC processors) or a way to implement similar functionality on the x86 platform. Also, where would be the best place to find out about such things (i.e. good articles/web sites/forums for lock/wait-free programing).
Edit
I think I might need to give more details as it is being assumed that I'm just looking for a CAS (compare and swap) operation. What I'm trying to do is implement a lock-free reference counting system with smart pointers that can be accessed and changed by multiple threads. I basically need a way to implement the following function on an x86 processor.
int* IncrementAndRetrieve(int **ptr)
{
int val;
int *pval;
do
{
// fetch the pointer to the value
pval = *ptr;
// if its NULL, then just return NULL, the smart pointer
// will then become NULL as well
if(pval == NULL)
return NULL;
// Grab the reference count
val = lwarx(pval);
// make sure the pointer we grabbed the value from
// is still the same one referred to by 'ptr'
if(pval != *ptr)
continue;
// Increment the reference count via 'stwcx' if any other threads
// have done anything that could potentially break then it should
// fail and try again
} while(!stwcx(pval, val + 1));
return pval;
}
I really need something that mimics LWARX and STWCX fairly accurately to pull this off (I can't figure out a way to do this with the CompareExchange, swap or add functions I've so far found for the x86).
Thanks
As Michael mentioned, what you're probably looking for is the cmpxchg instruction.
It's important to point out though that the PPC method of accomplishing this is known as Load Link / Store Conditional (LL/SC), while the x86 architecture uses Compare And Swap (CAS). LL/SC has stronger semantics than CAS in that any change to the value at the conditioned address will cause the store to fail, even if the other change replaces the value with the same value that the load was conditioned on. CAS, on the other hand, would succeed in this case. This is known as the ABA problem (see the CAS link for more info).
If you need the stronger semantics on the x86 architecture, you can approximate it by using the x86s double-width compare-and-swap (DWCAS) instruction cmpxchg8b, or cmpxchg16b under x86_64. This allows you to atomically swap two consecutive 'natural sized' words at once, instead of just the usual one. The basic idea is one of the two words contains the value of interest, and the other one contains an always incrementing 'mutation count'. Although this does not technically eliminate the problem, the likelihood of the mutation counter to wrap between attempts is so low that it's a reasonable substitute for most purposes.
x86 does not directly support "optimistic concurrency" like PPC does -- rather, x86's support for concurrency is based on a "lock prefix", see here. (Some so-called "atomic" instructions such as XCHG actually get their atomicity by intrinsically asserting the LOCK prefix, whether the assembly code programmer has actually coded it or not). It's not exactly "bomb-proof", to put it diplomatically (indeed, it's rather accident-prone, I would say;-).
You're probably looking for the cmpxchg family of instructions.
You'll need to precede these with a lock instruction to get equivalent behaviour.
Have a look here for a quick overview of what's available.
You'll likely end up with something similar to this:
mov ecx,dword ptr [esp+4]
mov edx,dword ptr [esp+8]
mov eax,dword ptr [esp+12]
lock cmpxchg dword ptr [ecx],edx
ret 12
You should read this paper...
Edit
In response to the updated question, are you looking to do something like the Boost shared_ptr? If so, have a look at that code and the files in that directory - they'll definitely get you started.
if you are on 64 bits and limit yourself to say 1tb of heap, you can pack the counter into the 24 unused top bits. if you have word aligned pointers the bottom 5 bits are also available.
int* IncrementAndRetrieve(int **ptr)
{
int val;
int *unpacked;
do
{
val = *ptr;
unpacked = unpack(val);
if(unpacked == NULL)
return NULL;
// pointer is on the bottom
} while(!cas(unpacked, val, val + 1));
return unpacked;
}
Don't know if LWARX and STWCX invalidate the whole cache line, CAS and DCAS do. Meaning that unless you are willing to throw away a lot of memory (64 bytes for each independent "lockable" pointer) you won't see much improvement if you are really pushing your software into stress. The best results I've seen so far were when people consciously casrificed 64b, planed their structures around it (packing stuff that won't be subject of contention), kept everything alligned on 64b boundaries, and used explicit read and write data barriers. Cache line invalidation can cost approx 20 to 100 cycles, making it a bigger real perf issue then just lock avoidance.
Also, you'd have to plan different memory allocation strategy to manage either controlled leaking (if you can partition code into logical "request processing" - one request "leaks" and then releases all it's memory bulk at the end) or datailed allocation management so that one structure under contention never receives memory realesed by elements of the same structure/collection (to prevent ABA). Some of that can be very counter-intuitive but it's either that or paying the price for GC.
What you are trying to do will not work the way you expect. What you implemented above can be done with the InterlockedIncrement function (Win32 function; assembly: XADD).
The reason that your code does not do what you think it does is that another thread can still change the value between the second read of *ptr and stwcx without invalidating the stwcx.