I'm in need of understanding how memory is managed in objective C.
I know the basics, if you create it and own it, you must release it yourself.
However, when it gets to code such as:
self.storeDict = [NSMutableDictionary dictionaryWithContentsOfFile:plistPath2];
Do I own this? Must I release this memory?
self.storeDict = [NSMutableDictionary dictionaryWithContentsOfFile:plistPath2];
//73.3% leak
totalCharacters = [storeDict count];
tagCounter = 1;
dictKeyArray = [[storeDict allKeys] mutableCopy];
//13.3% leak
When Instruments puts a bunch of percentages next to the highlighted leaks, what does that tell me? Does it tell me the size of the leak relative to the total amount of memory leaked?
And one last thing.. Is it normal for the amount of allocated memory to continuously rise? Or should it stabilize somewhere?
Thanks for all the help! Everything is greatly appreciated!
In most cases, you only own objects returned by methods whose names begin with "alloc", "new", "copy", or "mutableCopy". Of course, you also own anything to which you send -retain. Exceptions to these rules should be called out in the documentation for the non-conforming methods.
See https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/MemoryMgmt/Articles/mmRules.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/20000994-SW1
Instruments attributes a leak to the line where the object was created. However, that's not necessarily the code which leaked the object. If the pointer to the object was passed to some other code and that code did not balance its retains and releases, then that code is responsible for the leak. Instruments can show you the history of retains and releases for a specific object, and you'll have to review those to see which code is not discharging its ownership responsibilities properly.
Also, if an object is owned by another object and it's really that second object that was leaked, then everything it owned will have leaked "transitively" as it were. So, look for higher-level objects which have leaked before trying to track down low-level objects which have leaked. Often, it is the objects which have leaked fewer instances which are the root of a graph of leaked objects.
Whether it is normal for memory to keep rising or to stabilize, that depends a little. Usually, memory usage should stabilize. However, if your app really is doing more and more, then it may be normal for its memory usage to keep increasing. For example, if an app is receiving data over the network and accumulating results as it does so, then its memory usage would likely rise as more data arrives. But if it doesn't stop at some reasonable point, that's a problem. On an iOS device, the system will eventually kill it.
Related
I just started creating an app using SceneKit and SpriteKit and ARC for the first time. I noticed that the memory usage is quickly increasing when I switch between different Views. My first thought was that I have memory leaks but I am not sure now. The behavior even occurs in this basic example:
for(int r=0;r<9999999;r+=1){
NSString *s=[NSString stringWithFormat:#"test%i",r];
s=nil;
}
From my understanding an NSString Object is created and directly released in this loop. I've tried this example in the iPhone-Simulator and on an iPhone and it makes the app use several hundreds MB of RAM after this loop is executed. (I am checking the memory usage with the Xcode debug navigator)
I am obviously misunderstanding something. Why is this example still retaining memory afterwards?
edit:
You could also create a new project: iOS -> Game -> Game Technology: SceneKit
Then add this into viewDidLoad:
for(int r=0;r<999999;r+=1){
SCNNode *tn=[SCNNode node];
tn=nil;
}
The memory will peak at 550MB and go down to 300MB which would be to much if there objects were fully released and removed from the RAM.
Don't rely on NSString for memory diagnostics. It has fairly atypical behavior.
This is a not-uncommon scenario, one that I've seen on S.O. more than once, that in an attempt to reduce some complicated memory problem to something simpler, the developer creates a simplified example using NSString, unaware that choosing that particular class introduces curious, unrelated behaviors. The new "Debug Memory Graph" tool or the old tried-and-true Instruments (discussed below) is the best way to diagnose the underlying issues in one's code.
As an aside, you talk about releasing objects immediately. If your method doesn't start with alloc, new, copy or mutableCopy, the object returned will not deallocated immediately after falling out of scope, because they're autorelease objects. They're not released until the autorelease pool is drained (e.g., you yield back to the run loop).
So, if your app's "high water" mark is too high, but memory eventually falls back to acceptable levels, then consider the choice of autorelease objects (and/or the introducing of your own autorelease pools). But generally this autorelease vs non-autorelease object distinction is somewhat academic unless you have a very long running loop in which you're allocating many objects prior to yielding back to the run loop.
In short, autorelease objects don't affect whether objects are deallocated or not, but merely when they are deallocated. I only mention this in response to the large for loop and the contention that objects should be deallocated immediately. The precise timing of the deallocation is impacted by the presence of autorelease objects.
Regarding your rapid memory increase in your app, it's likely to be completely unrelated to your example here. The way to diagnose this is to use Instruments (as described in WWDC 2013 Fixing Memory Issues). In short, choose "Product" - "Profile" and choose the "Leaks" tool (which will grab the essential "Allocations" tool, as well), exercise the app, and then look at precisely what was allocated and not released.
Also, Xcode 8's "Debug Object Graph" tool is incredibly useful, too, and is even easier to use. It is described in WWDC 2016's Visual Debugging with Xcode. With this tool you can see a list of objects in the left panel, and when you choose one, you can see the object graph associated with that object, so you can diagnose what unresolved references you might still have:
By the way, you might try simulating a memory warning. Cocoa objects do all sorts of caching, some of which is purged when there's memory pressure.
If you turned on any memory debugging options (e.g., zombies) on your scheme, be aware that those cause additional memory growth as it captures the associated debugging information. You might want to turn off any debugging options before analyzing leaked, abandoned or cached memory.
Bottom line, if you're seeing growth of a couple of kb per iteration and none of the objects that you instantiate are showing up and you don't have any debugging options turned on, then you might not need to worry about it. Many Cocoa objects are doing sundry cacheing that is outside of our control and it's usually negligible. But if memory is growing by mb or gb every iteration (and don't worry about the first iteration, but only subsequent ones), then that's something you really need to look at carefully.
Both are exactly the same thing, except that "abandoned memory" refers to a whole object graph leaked rather than just a single object. Right?
First, you need to understand the notion of a "memory object graph" or "application object graph" (or, simply, "object graph" as it applies to allocated buffers). In this case, "object" refers to any allocation in your application, be it an object or a simple malloc()ed buffer. The "graph" part if it is that any object can contain a reference to -- a pointer -- to other objects.
The "live object graph" of an application are all of the allocations that can be reached, directly or indirectly, from the various "roots" in the application. A "root" is something that, on its own, represents a live reference to an object, regardless of whether or not anything else explicitly references the root.
For example, global variables are roots; by referring to an object, a global variable, by definition, makes that object part of the app's live object graph. And, by implication, any objects that the object referred to by the global variable are also considered to be live; not leaked.
The same goes for the stack; any object referred to by any thread's live stack is, itself, considered live.
With this in mind, a leak and abandoned memory actually do have two distinct meanings.
Leak
A leak is a piece of memory for which there are no references to the allocation from any live object in the application's live object graph.
I.e. the memory is unreachable and, thus, there is no way that it can ever be referred to again (barring bugs). It is dead memory.
Note that if object A points to object B and object B points to A, but nothing in the live object graph points to either A or B, it is still a leak. If the B->A and A->B references are both retained references, you got yourself a retain cycle & a leak.
Abandoned Memory
Allocations that are in the app's live object graph but are no longer reachable due to application logic issues are considered abandoned, but not leaked.
For example, say you have a cache whose entries are instances of NSData that were downloaded from some URL where the URL contains a session ID in the URL (a common pattern) and that session ID + URL are used as the key to look up stuff in the cache. Now, say the user logs out, causing the session ID to be destroyed. If the cache isn't also pruned of all entries specific to that session ID, then all of those NSData objects will be abandoned, but not leaked as they can still be reached via the cache.
In reality, there is little use in making this strong of a distinction between the two save for that fixing either requires very different strategies.
Fixing a leak is to figure out where the extra retain came from (or where a missing call to free() might need to be inserted, in the case of a malloc() based leak). Since a detected leak cannot be reached from the live object graph, fixing a leak is really this straightforward.
Fixing abandoned memory can be considerably trickier for a couple of reasons.
First, the memory is still reachable from the live object graph. Thus, by definition, there is an algorithmic problem in your application that is keeping the memory alive. Finding and fixing that can often be much more difficult and potentially disruptive then fixing a mere leak.
Secondly, there might be non-zeroing non-retained weak references to the abandoned allocation. That is, if you figure out where to prune the strong references and make the allocation actually go away, that doesn't mean that your work is done; if there are any remaining non-zeroing weak references, they will now be dangling pointers and..... BOOM.
As Amit indicated, Heapshot Analysis is quite adept at finding both leaks, abandoned memory and -- quite important -- overall "Undesirable Memory Growth".
Not sure if there's a standard terminology, but there's also the possibility of having memory around which does have a reference, but will never be used. (The Heap Shot feature of the Leaks instrument can help track this down.) I call this "bloat" to distinguish it from a true leak. Both are wasted memory.
Abandoned memory are the memory leaks. Heapshot Analysis will help you to Find Undesirable Memory Growth. This is good article about that. http://www.friday.com/bbum/2010/10/17/when-is-a-leak-not-a-leak-using-heapshot-analysis-to-find-undesirable-memory-growth/
I'm still trying to understand this piece of code that I found in a project I'm working on where the guy that created it left the company before I could ask.
This is the code:
-(void)releaseMySelf{
for (int i=myRetainCount; i>1; i--) {
[self release];
}
[self autorelease];
}
As far as I know, in Objective-C memory management model, the first rule is that the object that allocates another object, is also responsible to release it in the future. That's the reason I don't understand the meaning of this code. Is there is any meaning?
The author is trying to work around not understand memory management. He assumes that an object has a retain count that is increased by each retain and so tries to decrease it by calling that number of releases. Probably he has not implemented the "is also responsible to release it in the future." part of your understanding.
However see many answers here e.g. here and here and here.
Read Apple's memory management concepts.
The first link includes a quote from Apple
The retainCount method does not account for any pending autorelease
messages sent to the receiver.
Important: This method is typically of no value in debugging memory
management issues. Because any number of framework objects may have
retained an object in order to hold references to it, while at the
same time autorelease pools may be holding any number of deferred
releases on an object, it is very unlikely that you can get useful
information from this method. To understand the fundamental rules of
memory management that you must abide by, read “Memory Management
Rules”. To diagnose memory management problems, use a suitable tool:
The LLVM/Clang Static analyzer can typically find memory management
problems even before you run your program. The Object Alloc instrument
in the Instruments application (see Instruments User Guide) can track
object allocation and destruction. Shark (see Shark User Guide) also
profiles memory allocations (amongst numerous other aspects of your
program).
Since all answers seem to misread myRetainCount as [self retainCount], let me offer a reason why this code could have been written: It could be that this code is somehow spawning threads or otherwise having clients register with it, and that myRetainCount is effectively the number of those clients, kept separately from the actual OS retain count. However, each of the clients might get its own ObjC-style retain as well.
So this function might be called in a case where a request is aborted, and could just dispose of all the clients at once, and afterwards perform all the releases. It's not a good design, but if that's how the code works, (and you didn't leave out an int myRetainCount = [self retainCount], or overrides of retain/release) at least it's not necessarily buggy.
It is, however, very likely a bad distribution of responsibilities or a kludgey and hackneyed attempt at avoiding retain circles without really improving anything.
This is a dirty hack to force a memory release: if the rest of your program is written correctly, you never need to do anything like this. Normally, your retains and releases are in balance, so you never need to look at the retain count. What this piece of code says is "I don't know who retained me and forgot to release, I just want my memory to get released; I don't care that the others references would be dangling from now on". This is not going to compile with ARC (oddly enough, switching to ARC may just fix the error the author was trying to work around).
The meaning of the code is to force the object to deallocate right now, no matter what the future consequences may be. (And there will be consequences!)
The code is fatally flawed because it doesn't account for the fact that someone else actually "owns" that object. In other words, something "alloced" that object, and any number of other things may have "retained" that object (maybe a data structure like NSArray, maybe an autorelease pool, maybe some code on the stackframe that just does a "retain"); all those things share ownership in this object. If the object commits suicide (which is what releaseMySelf does), these "owners" suddenly point to bad memory, and this will lead to unexpected behavior.
Hopefully code written like this will just crash. Perhaps the original author avoided these crashes by leaking memory elsewhere.
I'm following the Stanford iOS development lectures and I have a Calculator brain class which has been alloc init in a controller but I haven't released it in the dealloc.
- (CalculatorBrain *)brain
{
if (!brain)
brain = [[CalculatorBrain alloc] init];
return brain;
}
I ran from XCode -> Run with Performance Tool and the app started and no leaks appeared, I then clicked the home button in the iOS Simulator and nothing, I then double clicked the home button and closed the app and still nothing.
I also did Build & Analyse and it didnt spot anything
Could you let me know why its not picking it up?
It appears as if there is no detectable leak. Look at this line:
brain = [[CalculatorBrain alloc] init];
As long as brain points to an object, that object won't be considered a "memory leak". If at some point you do this,
brain = nil;
Then the leak will register. Deallocating the container object will also achieve this, but are you sure it's being deallocated? (It won't be deallocated when your program exits, for example.)
The problem: Leak detectors cannot detect all memory leaks -- this is a mathematically proven fact. Most detectors only detect unreachable objects, and many leak detectors are especially susceptible to false negatives -- in C it is hard to tell the difference at runtime between a pointer and an integer.
Edit: It sounds like your application only ever creates one instance of the controller, which only creates one instance of CalculatorBrain. If you think about what a memory leak really is, you can define it as unused memory that your program does not release back to the operating system.
While the program is running, CalculatorBrain is always in use and therefore it is not a leak.
When the program exits, the operating system automatically reclaims all memory used by your process, therefore there cannot be any memory leaks after a program exits.
If you want to create a leak to see what it looks like, you could create a new CalculatorBrain multiple times while your program is running, but forget to release the unused versions. In this scenario, as your program runs, more and more instances of CalculatorBrain would accumulate. On iOS and other embedded systems, this will generally crash your program. On a modern 64 bit computer it will gradually fill up the available swap space until you run out of swap, address space, or some other resource -- causing the program to crash or making the system very unresponsive.
Standard practice is to not care about deallocating objects which are supposed to exist for the entire program's run.
The analyzer cannot find all memory leaks. As far as it is concerned, storing the instance into the ivar doesn't leak it from that method, and then in dealloc it doesn't realize that the ivar should be released. XCode 4 may have improved in this respect, I don't recall (I still use XCode 3 myself).
As for the performance tool, remember that an object won't be considered leaked until nothing holds a reference to it anymore. So even though your controller doesn't deallocate the brain, the brain won't be considered leaked until the controller is deallocated (or receives a brain transplant). Also, note that on *nix-like systems, memory allocations are automatically cleaned up on process exit. So it isn't really a leak if you allocate memory for objects that should exist for the lifetime of your process (e.g. the app delegate and anything it permanently holds on to) and rely on this behavior to free it on process exit.
Well... it's true that leaks can't detect all memory leaks, but let's say that you are doing this:
myIvarBrain=[self brain];
If you are giving it to an iVar (released in the dealloc of your class, and without accessors), actually there is no leak at all. The returned RC is one and it will be one since the deallocation of your class. If you don't release it in the dealloc, you should wait a dealloc of your class to see a memory leak.
Does make sense?
When I perform a [NSString release] or [NSArray release] or [NSMutableArray release], what happens?
Does the memory became wiped out?
Or just pushed on the stack and dropped from the heap, or vise versa?
If I just want to dump memory when I am done with it, is "release" the best thing to use?
I am dealing with many matrices and don't want them sticking around using memory...
thanks
Just read the Memory Management Programming Guide and your questions will be answered.
Also, if you're dealing with a lot of matrices you may want to use manual autorelease pools.
When I perform a [NSString release] or [NSArray release] or
[NSMutableArray release], what happens?
The retainCount of the instance that you call release on is decremented. If it reaches 0 as a result of your call, then the instance will be deallocated.
Does the memory became wiped out? Or just pushed on the stack and dropped from the heap, or vise versa?
Not necessarily. The memory may become wiped out (in the sense that it no longer contains a valid object instance and may be overwritten by other things) once the retainCount reaches 0 (or less if you over-release something), but this is not guaranteed to happen immediately upon your call to release. The released instance may in fact stick around for quite awhile, if it is associated with an NSAutoreleasePool that is not drained frequently or if someone else has called retain on it.
If I just want to dump memory when I am done with it, is "release" the
best thing to use?
In general, yes. If you want really low-level control of things, you can also use malloc() and free() instead, which will release memory more immediately than calling release will.
When you perform a release, the use count in the object is decremented. If the use count decrements to zero (because it's not simultaneously "owned" by some other code or data structure), the heap space occupied by the object is marked as available for reuse.
When a new object is allocated, the heap is searched for an appropriately sized piece of reusable space, and if your recently freed piece is the first one found to match the required size, that storage is marked "in use" again and your old data is overwritten with the new object.
Note that this means that if you release an object too soon you may still be able to use it for awhile, but it can suddenly, at any time, go "poof" and turn into an entirely different object, causing mysterious errors.