I'm testing my code on Ubuntu 12.04 with NVIDIA hardware.
No actual OpenCL processing takes place; but my initialization code is still running. This code calls clGetPlatformIDs. However, Valgrind is reporting a memory leak:
==2718== 8 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 4 of 74
==2718== at 0x4C2B6CD: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==2718== by 0x509ECB6: ??? (in /usr/lib/nvidia-current/libOpenCL.so.1.0.0)
==2718== by 0x50A04E1: ??? (in /usr/lib/nvidia-current/libOpenCL.so.1.0.0)
==2718== by 0x509FE9F: clGetPlatformIDs (in /usr/lib/nvidia-current/libOpenCL.so.1.0.0)
I was unaware this was even possible. Can this be fixed? Note that no special deinitialization is currently taking place--do I need to call something after this? The docs don't mention anything about having to deallocate anything.
regarding: "Check this out: devgurus.amd.com/thread/136242. valgrind cannot deal with custom memory allocators by design, which OpenCL is likely using"
to quote from the link given: "The behaviour not to free pools at the exit could be called a bug of the library though."
If you want to create a pool of memory and allocate from that, go ahead; but you still should properly deallocate it. The complexity of a memory pool as a whole is no less complex then the complexity of a regular memory reference and deserves at least the same attention, if not more, then that of regular references. Also, an 8 byte structure is highly unlikely to be a memory pool.
Tim Child would have a point about how you use clGetPlatformIds if it was designed to return allocated memory. However, reading http://www.khronos.org/registry/cl/sdk/1.0/docs/man/xhtml/clGetPlatformIDs.html I am not sufficiently convinced this should be the case.
The leak in question may or may not be serious, may or may not accumulate by successive calls, but you might be left only with the option to report the bug to nvidia in hopes they fix it or to find a different opencl implementation for development. Still, there might be reasons for an opencl library to create references to data which from the viewpoint of valgrind are not in use.
Sadly, this still leaves us with a memory leak caused by an external factor we cannot control, and it still leaves us with excess valgrind output.
Say you are sufficiently sure you are not responsible for this leak (say, we know for a fact that an nvidia engineer allocated a random value in OpenCL.so which he didn't deallocate just to spite you). Valgrind has a flag --gen-suppressions=yes, with which you can suppress warnings about particular warnings, which you can feed back to valgrind using --suppressions=$filename. Read the valgrind page for more details about how it works.
Be very wary of using suppressions though. Obviously suppressing errors does not fix them, and liberal usage of the mechanism will lead to situations where you suppress errors made by your code, rather then nvidia or valgrind. Do not suppress warnings of which you are not absolutely sure of where they come from, or regularly reassert your suppressions.
Related
I have a program that exhibits the behavior of a memory leak. It gradually takes up all of the systems memory until it fills all swap space and then the operating system kills it. This happens once every several days.
I have extensively profiled the heap in a manner of ways (-hy, -hm, -hc) and tried limiting heap size (-M128M) tweaked the number of generations (-G1) but no matter what I do the heap size appears constant-ish and low always (measured in kB not MB or GB). Yet when I observe the program in htop, its resident memory steadily climbs.
What this indicates to me is that the memory leak is coming from somewhere besides the GHC heap. My program makes use of dependencies, specifically Haskell's yaml library which wraps the C library libyaml, it is possible that the leak is in the number of foreign pointers it has to objects allocated by libyaml.
My question is threefold:
What places besides the GHC heap can memory leak from in a Haskell program?
What tools can I use to track these down?
What changes to my source code need to be made to avoid these types of leaks, as they seem to differ from the more commonly experienced space leaks in Haskell?
This certainly sounds like foreign pointers aren't being finalized properly. There are several possible reasons for this:
The underlying C library doesn't free memory properly.
The Haskell library doesn't set up finalization properly.
The ForeignPtr objects aren't being freed.
I think there's actually a decent chance that it's option 3. If the RTS consistently finds enough memory in the first GC generation, then it just won't bother running a major collection. Fortunately, this is the easiest to diagnose. Just have your program run System.Memory.performGC every so often. If that fixes it, you've found the bug and can tweak just how often you want to do that.
Another possible issue is that you could have foreign pointers lying around in long-lived thunks or other closures. Make sure you don't.
One particularly strong possibility when working with a wrapped C library is that the wrapper functions will return ByteStrings whose underlying arrays were allocated by C code. So any ByteStrings you get back from yaml could potentially be off-heap.
this is a rather simple question.
In my school we use a remote CentOS server to compile and test our programs. For some reason, valgrind always shows a 4096B leak in spite of the fact that no malloc was used. Does anyone here have any idea where this problem might stem from?
Your program makes a call to printf. This library might allocate memory for its own usage. More generally, depending on the OS/libc/..., various allocations might be done just to start a program.
Note also that in this case, you see that there is one block still allocated at exit, and that this block is part of the suppressed count. That means that valgrind suppression file already ensures that this memory does not appear in the list of leaks to be examined.
In summary: no problem.
In any case, when you suspect you have a leak, you can look at the details of the leaks e.g. their allocation stack trace to see if these are triggered by your application.
In addition to #phd's answer, there are a few things you can do to see more clearly what is going on.
If you run Valgrind with -s or -v it will show details of the suppressions used.
You can use --trace-malloc=yes to see all calls to allocation functions (only do that for small applications). Similarly you can run with --default-suppressions=no and than you will see the details of the memory (with --leak-check=full --show-reachable=yes in this case)
Finally, are you using an old Centos / GNU libc? A few years ago Valgrind got a mechanism to cleanup things like io buffers so you shouldn't get this sort of message with recent Valgrind and recent Linux + libc.
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.
is it ok to call too many malloc & free in a program?
i have a program that does malloc and free for each record. Although it sounds bad, does it have performance issue if i use too many malloc and free ?
Most modern malloc(3) implementations work like a memory pool. Since most modern OSes treat memory with pages (usually 4KB size), a malloc will probably request at least 4KB from the OS.
Suppose you keep calling malloc with 32. In your first malloc, at least one new page is requested from the OS (via sbrk(2) on unix). The successive mallocs have nothing to do with the OS, they just return you the next free chunk of memory in the memory pool as long as memory is available. So, calling malloc many times is not a big deal, usually. The point here is that system calls (the communication between the user process and OS) are usually expensive and malloc tries its best to avoid as much as possible.
free is similar too. When you free memory, usually OS isn't notified about that. When a page is totally freed, the page may be returned to the OS. Some implementations do not return the page to the OS unless the process already holds many unused pages.
To sum it up, malloc and free are like generic memory managers working with arbitrary size. The problem you might face is that malloc is designed to work with arbitrary size allocations, which might be slower than a memory manager that's designed to work with fixed size allocations. If you're usually allocating the same types of memory, you might be better off with implementing your own memory pool. Another case would be that malloc calls involve locking/unlocking in most modern implementations to support multithreading. If you're working with a single thread, that might also be an overhead: another reason to implement your own memory pool.
You might also want to work with different malloc implementations, benchmark them and decide to go with either one. Starting with a clean implementation and stripping off unnecessary parts might also be a good idea here.
yes/no. Large volumes of malloc/free can cause the heap to be fragmented to the point where malloc can fail. It is less of an issue now that memory is pretty cheap.
There is some overhead in calling malloc, but not a lot. malloc basically has to go to through the heap and find a block of memory that is unused and large enough to hold the number of bytes you asked for, then it designates that block as used and tells the operating system to mmap it for you and returns a pointer to that block.
It's a few steps, but really not a lot of work for your computer. The difference between using malloc to get memory for you, and putting a variable on the stack is a handful of instructions, and a system call, and unless you're programming on an embedded system, you honestly shouldn't worry about it. You'll only take a real performance hit if you allocate so much memory that you actually run out of RAM (in which case your Virtual Memory Manager will have to move some things into the swap space to make more room - as it turns out, malloc never fails)!
Freeing memory is even easier than allocating it, and in the end it's better to free what you allocate (future malloc calls will be faster, more memory will be available).
In short, use malloc to your hearts content! Decades of advances in technology have worked hard to earn you that right, there's no sense squandering it!
By definition 'too many' is 'too many'.
But more seriously, on most systems heap allocation is reasonably fast - because its done a lot. Allocating space for a record each time its processed doesn't sound bad.
The real answer is : write your program and measure its speed, is it acceptable? If not then profile it and find where the bottlenecks are - my 10c says it wont be heap processing
We have a a very large project which is basically an application which uses Linux Application programming and runs on PowerPC processor. This project was initially developed by another company. We acquired the project from the company and now we are maintaining the project.
The application is reported to have a lot of memory leak issue. Since this is a large project, it is not possible to go to each source code file and find out the memory leak. We have used Valgrid, mpatrol and other memory leak detection tools. These tools did not help much and the memory leak has not decreased by a significant percentage.
In this situation, how to go about to reduce the memory leak by a significant amount.Is there a general method which people use in these case to reduce the memory leak other than the memory leak detection tools like mentioned above.
Usually Valgrind belongs to the best tools for this tasks. If it does not work correctly, there might only be a couple of things you can still do.
First question: What language is the application in? Valgrind is very good for C and C++, but will not help you with garbage collected or scripting language. So check the language first. There might be something similar for java, but I have not used that much java, so you would have to ask someone else.
Play around a lot with the settings of valgrind. There are several plugins, that can help with this. One example could be using --leak-check=full or similar options. There are also plugins for valgrind, that can enhance it detection capabilities.
You say, that the application was reported to have a memory leak. How was this detected? Did the application detect this by itself. If it was detected by the application on it's own without any external tools, this probably means someone has added their own memory tracker inside the application. Custom memory tracker, memory pools etc. mess up valgrind and any other leak detection system very bad. So in case any custom memory handling is present in the application, your only choice is to either deactivate it (if possible) or to hook into this custom mechanism. How this could be done depends on your application only.
Add your own memory tracker. For example in C++ it is possible to hook into new/delete calls and get them to track the memory. There are a couple of libraries you can use for this. You can also write your own new/delete replacement in about 500 LOC. If you decide to use this method, be sure to read a lot of tutorials on replacing new/delete, since there are several things that are unusual in the C++ world when attempting this task.
What makes you so sure, there is an memory leak in the application (i.e. how was this detected)? If a tool just reported huge numbers of allocated memory, this might not even mean, there is an actual memory leak. A memory leak means that the handles to the memory are lost and hence it becomes impossible to every reach and free that memory again. In case your application just get's a lot of memory and keeps it accessible, you probably have a completely different problem. For example you simply might use an algorithm with a bad space complexity at one point or the other, leading to many allocations. In this case you will not need a leak detector, but rather a memory profiler, which gives you more detailed overview of the memory footprint of the code parts. However I have never used a profiler for this kind of task before, so I cannot give you any more hints on this.
You could replace all memory allocation calls with calls to your own allocation methods, which should call original methods and at the same time count memory usage and where it was allocated. This will allow you to find the leaks and eliminate them by hand.
There might also be automated tools that allow you to do this - not sure, haven't used any. But this method works.
Perhaps you might also consider using Boehm's garbage collector (that is using GC_malloc instead of malloc etc... and not bother about free-ing data).