I want to cache the instances of a certain class. The class keeps a dictionary of all its instances and when somebody requests a new instance, the class tries to satisfy the request from the cache first. There is a small problem with memory management though: The dictionary cache retains the inserted objects, so that they never get deallocated. I do want them to get deallocated, so that I had to overload the release method and when the retain count drops to one, I can remove the instance from cache and let it get deallocated.
This works, but I am not comfortable mucking around the release method and find the solution overly complicated. I thought I could use some hashing class that does not retain the objects it stores. Is there such? The idea is that when the last user of a certain instance releases it, the instance would automatically disappear from the cache.
NSHashTable seems to be what I am looking for, but the documentation talks about “supporting weak relationships in a garbage-collected environment.” Does it also work without garbage collection?
Clarification: I cannot afford to keep the instances in memory unless somebody really needs them, that is why I want to purge the instance from the cache when the last “real” user releases it.
Better solution: This was on the iPhone, I wanted to cache some textures and on the other hand I wanted to free them from memory as soon as the last real holder released them. The easier way to code this is through another class (let’s call it TextureManager). This class manages the texture instances and caches them, so that subsequent calls for texture with the same name are served from the cache. There is no need to purge the cache immediately as the last user releases the texture. We can simply keep the texture cached in memory and when the device gets short on memory, we receive the low memory warning and can purge the cache. This is a better solution, because the caching stuff does not pollute the Texture class, we do not have to mess with release and there is even a higher chance for cache hits. The TextureManager can be abstracted into a ResourceManager, so that it can cache other data, not only textures.
Yes, you can use an NSHashTable to build what is essentially a non-retaining dictionary. Alternatively, you can call CFDictionaryCreate with NULL for release and retain callbacks. You can then simply typecast the result to a NSDictionary thanks to tollfree bridging, and use it just like a normal NSDictionary except for not fiddling with retain counts.
If you do this the dictionary will not automatically zero the reference, you will need to make sure to remove it when you dealloc an instance.
What you want is a zeroing weak reference (it's not a "Graal of cache managing algorithms", it's a well known pattern). The problem is that Objective C provides you with zeroing weak references only when running with garbage collection, not in manual memory managed programs. And the iPhone does not provide garbage collection (yet).
All the answers so far seem to point you to half-solutions.
Using a non-reataining reference is not sufficient because you will need to zero it out (or remove the entry from the dictionary) when the referenced object is deallocated. However this must be done BEFORE the -dealloc method of that object is called otherwise the very existence of the cache expose you to the risk that the object is resurrected. The way to do this is to dynamically subclass the object when you create the weak reference and, in the dynamically created subclass, override -release to use a lock and -dealloc to zero out the weak reference(s).
This works in general but it fails miserably for toll-free bridged Core Foundation objects. Unfortunately the only solution, if you need to to extend the technique to toll-free bridged objects, requires some hacking and undocumented stuff (see here for code and explanations) and is therefore not usable for iOS or programs that you want to sell on the Mac App Store.
If you need to sell on the Apple stores and must therefore avoid undocumented stuff, your best alternative is to implement locked access to a retaining cache and then scavenge it for references with a current -retainCount value of 1 when you want to release memory. As long as all accesses to the cache are done with the lock held, if you observe a count of 1 while holding the lock you know that there's no-one that can resurrect the object if you remove it from the cache (and therefore release it) before relinquishing the lock.
For iOS you can use UIApplicationDidReceiveMemoryWarningNotification to trigger the scavenging. On the mac you need to implement your own logic: maybe just a periodical check or even simply a periodical scavenging (both solutions would also work on iOS).
I've just implemented this kind of thing by using an NSMutableDictionary and registering for UIApplicationDidReceiveMemoryWarningNotification. On a memory warning I remove anything from the dictionary with a retainCount of 1...
Use [NSValue valueWithNonretainedObject:] to wrap the instance in an NSValue and put that in the dictionary. In the instance dealloc method, remove the corresponding entry from the dictionary. No messing with retain.
My understanding is that you want to implement the Graal of cache managing algorithms: drop items that will no longer be used.
You may want to consider other criteria, such as dropping the least recently requested items.
I think the way I would approach this is to maintain a separate count or a flag somewhere to indicate if the object in the cache is being used or not. You could then check this when you're done with an object, or just run a check every n seconds to see if it needs to be released or not.
I would avoid any solution involving releasing the object before removing it from the dictionary (using NSValue's valueWithNonretainedObject: would be another way to accomplish this). It would just cause you problems in the long run.
Related
Is there any point to using retain on a singleton? I believe the whole point of using the singleton pattern is to keep one global object to access from various classes. What would be a case to use retain on such an object?
Generally, the implementation of retain in a singleton class returns self (not singleton instance) like below:
-(id)retain
{
return self;
}
I recently went through some open source code, and the author repeatedly retained the singleton
object = [[SingletonClass shareObject] retain]
and released it in dealloc.
So when I tried to build this project, it worked at first, then crashed when it attempted to access variables on singleton object later.
What would happen exactly, if I retain a singleton object and attempt to access it?
Just because it's a singleton doesn't mean its lifetime is necessarily the lifetime of the process. For example, you might have some singleton that obtains a resource. But until you need that resource, there's no point in creating it. Likewise, you might know that all instances are done with that resource, so why keep it around? An easy way to keep track of whether a singleton needs to continue to exist is its retain count.
For example, you might have a singleton that represents the video camera built-in to a user's device. There might be different parts of your application that need to access the camera. But it might also be possible to use your app without the camera, or the workflow may dictate that the camera is turned off at some point (for privacy, or whatever). So you don't allocate the singleton until the user initiates an action that starts camera use. They may do several actions with the camera, such as take a picture, scan a QR code, record some video, etc. Then they may end all of those actions and need the memory taken by the camera freed up (especially on a mobile device). So they end those actions. If each camera-related actions retained the camera singleton, then each released it when they were done, you could free up the memory and other resources used by the camera, even though it's still a singleton.
Consistency. Make a point of always retaining objects that you keep references to, even if they're singletons, and you won't make mistakes down the road when you forget to retain objects that reference counts do matter for.
Never hold on to a singleton. There is no guarantee that the underlying library/class/manager doesn't replace that singleton with a new object in the application's lifetime. The point of a singleton access static method is for the current valid singleton to be available at any time to any caller.
Singletons are written by anyone and there is no guarantee that the singleton is not switched. The only guarantee is that a specific class will only have one existing instance at any time.
If you retain a singleton at some point the object you retained could be invalid or even worse, be completely different from the one being held to by the class singleton() method.
thanks for viewing this post, it'd be great if you guys can help me out. I've been doing some objective-c and learned about the objective-c way of memory management, like making sure to call release whenever I own the object, when to call autorelease, etc. I also do not want to use ARC or the newly introduced GC because I like to manage my own memory, I plan to advance later on into iOS development, and I know it's a good practice to manage my own memory. But there's still one small detail that I seem to have hit a brick wall in. It has to do with sending objects the -retain message. I learned that sending the -retain message increments the reference count by 1. But would this be an appropriate time to send -retain? :
- (void) setName : (NSString* ) theName
{
// name is an instance variable of type NSString
[theName retain]; // Must release this
name = [theName copy]; // Must release this in dealloc
[theName release]; // decrement the reference count because of retain
}
Should I call retain here so that I own the argument temporarily and ensure it doesnt'
get released somehow before I get to use it?
Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!
No. You the object supplied as an argument to the method will generally be around until your method returns. You don't need the retain messages there. You copy the string here to keep it around after the method returns.
This is documented in Apple's Documentation on this page in the "Avoid Causing Deallocation of Objects You’re Using" Section. Specifically:
Cocoa’s ownership policy specifies that received objects should
typically remain valid throughout the scope of the calling method. It
should also be possible to return a received object from the current
scope without fear of it being released. It should not matter to your
application that the getter method of an object returns a cached
instance variable or a computed value. What matters is that the object
remains valid for the time you need it.
As an aside you really should consider using ARC. Its not good practise to manage your own memory. No matter how good one can be at managing their own memory the LLVM compiler is still better. Managing your own memory will lead to hard to troubleshoot issues caused only by yourself. It is an extra level of cognitive load that you really don't have to deal with and, when you finally let manual memory management go, you will breathe a sigh of relief at all the mental overhead you didn't even know was there.
How would you write a unit test—using OCUnit, for instance—to ensure that objects are being released/retained properly in Cocoa/Objective-C?
A naïve way to do this would be to check the value of retainCount, but of course you should never use retainCount. Can you simply check whether an object's reference is assigned a value of nil to indicate that it has been released? Also, what guarantees do you have about the timing at which objects are actually deallocated?
I'm hoping for a concise solution of only a few lines of code, as I will probably use this extensively. There may actually be two answers: one that uses the autorelease pool, and another that does not.
To clarify, I'm not looking for a way to comprehensively test every object that I create. It's impossible to unit test any behavior comprehensively, let alone memory management. At the very least, though, it would be nice to check the behavior of released objects for regression testing (and ensure that the same memory-related bug doesn't happen twice).
About the Answers
I accepted BJ Homer's answer because I found it to be the easiest, most concise way of accomplishing what I had in mind, given the caveat that the weak pointers provided with Automatic Reference Counting aren't available in production versions of XCode (prior to 4.2?) as of July 23rd, 2011. I was also impressed to learn that
ARC can be enabled on a per-file basis; it does not require that your
entire project use it. You could compile your unit tests with ARC and
leave your main project on manual retain-release, and this test would
still work.
That being said, for a far more detailed exploration of the potential issues involved with unit testing memory management in Objective-C, I highly recommend Peter Hosey's in-depth response.
Can you simply check whether an object's reference is assigned a value of nil to indicate that it has been released?
No, because sending a release message to an object and assigning nil to a variable are two different and unrelated things.
The closest you can get is that assigning anything to a strong/retaining or copying property, which translates to an accessor message, causes the previous value of the property to be released (which is done by the setter). Even so, watching the value of the property—using KVO, say—does not mean you will know when the object is released; most especially, when the owning object is deallocated, you will not get a notification when it sends release directly to the owned object. You will also get a warning message in your console (because the owning object died while you were observing it), and you do not want noisy warning messages from a unit test. Plus, you would have to specifically observe every property of every object to pull this off—miss one, and you may be missing a bug.
A release message to an object has no effect on any variables that point to that object. Neither does deallocation.
This changes slightly under ARC: Weak-referencing variables will be automatically assigned nil when the referenced object goes away. That doesn't help you much, though, because strongly-referencing variables, by definition, will not: If there's a strong reference to the object, the object won't (well, shouldn't) go away, because the strong reference will (should) keep it alive. An object dying before it should is one of the problems you're looking for, not something you'll want to use as a tool.
You could theoretically create a weak reference to every object you create, but you would have to refer to every object specifically, creating a variable for it manually in your code. As you can imagine, a tremendous pain and certain to miss objects.
Also, what guarantees do you have about the timing at which objects are actually released?
An object is released by sending it a release message, so the object is released when it receives that message.
Perhaps you meant “deallocated”. Releasing merely brings it closer to that point; an object can be released many times and still have a long life ahead of it if each release merely balanced out a previous retain.
An object is deallocated when it is released for the last time. This happens immediately. The infamous retainCount doesn't even go down to 0, as many a clever person who tried to write while ([obj retainCount] > 0) [obj release]; has found out.
There may actually be two answers: one that uses the autorelease pool, and another that does not.
A solution that uses the autorelease pool only works for objects that are autoreleased; by definition, objects not autoreleased do not go into the pool. It is entirely valid, and occasionally desirable, to never autorelease certain objects (particularly those you create many thousands of). Moreover, you can't look into the pool to see what's in it and what's not, or attempt to poke each object to see if it's dead.
How would you write a unit test—using OCUnit, for instance—to ensure that objects are being released/retained properly in Cocoa/Objective-C?
The best you could do is to set NSZombieEnabled to YES in setUp and restore its previous value in tearDown. This will catch over-releases/under-retains, but not leaks of any kind.
Even if you could write a unit test that thoroughly tests memory management, it would still be imperfect because it can only test the testable code—model objects and maybe certain controllers. You could still have leaks and crashes in your application caused by view code, nib-borne references and certain options (“Release When Closed” comes to mind), and so on.
There's no out-of-application test you can write that will ensure that your application is memory-bug-free.
That said, a test like you're imagining, if it were self-contained and automatic, would be pretty cool, even if it couldn't test everything. So I hope that I'm wrong and there is a way.
If you can use the newly-introduced Automatic Reference Counting (not yet available in production versions of Xcode, but documented here), then you could use weak pointers to test whether anything was over-retained.
- (void)testMemory {
__weak id testingPointer = nil;
id someObject = // some object with a 'foo' property
#autoreleasepool {
// Point the weak pointer to the thing we expect to be dealloc'd
// when we're done.
id theFoo = [someObject theFoo];
testingPointer = theFoo;
[someObject setTheFoo:somethingElse];
// At this point, we still have a reference to 'theFoo',
// so 'testingPointer' is still valid. We need to nil it out.
STAssertNotNil(testingPointer, #"This will never happen, since we're still holding it.")
theFoo = nil;
}
// Now the last strong reference to 'theFoo' should be gone, so 'testingPointer' will revert to nil
STAssertNil(testingPointer, #"Something didn't release %# when it should have", testingPointer);
}
Note that this works under ARC because of this change to the language semantics:
A retainable object pointer is either a null pointer or a pointer to a valid object.
Thus, the act of setting a pointer to nil is guaranteed to release the object it points to, and there's no way (under ARC) to release an object without removing a pointer to it.
One thing to note is that ARC can be enabled on a per-file basis; it does not require that your entire project use it. You could compile your unit tests with ARC and leave your main project on manual retain-release, and this test would still work.
The above does not detect over-releasing, but that's fairly easy to catch with NSZombieEnabled anyway.
If ARC is simply not an option, you may be able to do something similar with Mike Ash's MAZeroingWeakRef. I haven't used it much, but it seems to provide similar functionality to __weak pointers in a backwards-compatible way.
this is possibly not what you're looking for, but as a thought experiment I wondered if this might do something close to what you want: what if you created a mechanism to track the retain/release behavior for particular objects you wanted to test. Work it something like this:
create an override of NSObject dealloc
create a CFMutableSetRef and set up a custom retain/release functions to do nothing
make a unit test routine like registerForRRTracking: (id) object
make a unit test routine like clearRRTrackingReportingLeaks: (BOOL) report that will report any object in the set at that point in time.
call [tracker clearRRTrackignReportingLeaks: NO]; at the start of your unit test
call the register method in your unit test for every object you want to track and it'll be removed automatically on dealloc.
At the end of your test call the [tracker clearRRTrackingReportingLeaks: YES]; and it'll list all the objects that were not disposed of properly.
you could override NSObject alloc as well and just track everything but I imagine your set would get overly large (!!!).
Even better would be to put the CFMutableSetRef in a separate process and thus not have it impact your program runtime memory footprint overly much. Adds the complexity and runtime hit of inter-process communication though. Could use a private heap ( or zone - do those still exist?) to isolate it to a lesser degree.
As is common knowledge, calls to alloc/copy/retain in Objective-C imply ownership and need to be balanced by a call to autorelease/release. How do you succinctly describe where this should happen? The word "succinct" is key. I can usually use intuition to guide me, but would like an explicit principle in case intuition fails and that can be use in discussions.
Properties simplify the matter (the rule is auto-/release happens in -dealloc and setters), but sometimes properties aren't a viable option (e.g. not everyone uses ObjC 2.0).
Sometimes the release should be in the same block. Other times the alloc/copy/retain happens in one method, which has a corresponding method where the release should occur (e.g. -init and -dealloc). It's this pairing of methods (where a method may be paired with itself) that seems to be key, but how can that be put into words? Also, what cases does the method-pairing notion miss? It doesn't seem to cover where you release properties, as setters are self-paired and -dealloc releases objects that aren't alloc/copy/retained in -init.
It feels like the object model is involved with my difficulty. There doesn't seem to be an element of the model that I can attach retain/release pairing to. Methods transform objects from valid state to valid state and send messages to other objects. The only natural pairings I see are object creation/destruction and method enter/exit.
Background:
This question was inspired by: "NSMutableDictionary does not get added into NSMutableArray". The asker of that question was releasing objects, but in such a way that might cause memory leaks. The alloc/copy/retain calls were generally balanced by releases, but in such a way that could cause memory leaks. The class was a delegate; some members were created in a delegate method (-parser:didStartElement:...) and released in -dealloc rather than in the corresponding (-parser:didEndElement:...) method. In this instance, properties seemed a good solution, but the question still remained of how to handle releasing when properties weren't involved.
Properties simplify the matter (the rule is auto-/release happens in -dealloc and setters), but sometimes properties aren't a viable option (e.g. not everyone uses ObjC 2.0).
This is a misunderstanding of the history of properties. While properties are new, accessors have always been a key part of ObjC. Properties just made it easier to write accessors. If you always use accessors, and you should, than most of these questions go away.
Before we had properties, we used Xcode's built-in accessor-writer (in the Script>Code menu), or with useful tools like Accessorizer to simplify the job (Accessorizer still simplifies property code). Or we just typed a lot of getters and setters by hand.
The question isn't where it should happen, it's when.
Release or autorelease an object if you have created it with +alloc, +new or -copy, or if you have sent it a -retain message.
Send -release when you don't care if the object continues to exist. Send -autorelease if you want to return it from the method you're in, but you don't care what happens to it after that.
I wouldn't say that dealloc is where you would call autorelease. And unless your object, whatever it may be, is linked to the life of a class, it doesn't necessarily need to be kept around for a retain in dealloc.
Here are my rules of thumb. You may do things in other ways.
I use release if the life of the
object I am using is limited to the
routine I am in now. Thus the object
gets created and released in that
routine. This is also the preferred
way if I am creating a lot of objects
in a routine, such as in a loop, and
I might want to release each object
before the next one is created in the
loop.
If the object I created in a method
needs to be passed back to the
caller, but I assume that the use of
the object will be transient and
limited to this run of the runloop, I
use autorelease. Here, I am trying to mimic many of Apple's convenience routines. (Want a quick string to use for a short period? Here you go, don't worry about owning it and it will get disposed appropriately.)
If I believe the object is to be kept
on a semi-permanent basis (like
longer than this run of the runloop),
I use create/new/copy in my method
name so the caller knows that they
are the owner of the object and will
have to release the object.
Any objects that are created by a
class and kept as a property with
retain (whether through the property
declaration or not), I release those
in dealloc (or in viewDidUnload as
appropriate).
Try not to let all this memory management overwhelm you. It is a lot easier than it sounds, and looking at a bunch of Apple's samples, and writing your own (and suffering bugs) will make you understand it better.
Plenty of Objective-C classes return objects. Statements like [[instanceOfNSWhatever objectForKey:aKey] stringValue], for instance, appear all over my (and hopefully everyone else's code).
How am I supposed to memory manage these "intermediate" objects?
Were they just created or did they always exist?
Can I retain them, and if I release the object that created them, will they be released as well?
Are they autoreleased?
What if I run [instanceOfNSWhatever stringValue] a million times in a loop? Can I dispose of all those NSStrings as needed?
I'm still learning ObjC, and while I've been good at balancing my retain counts overall, I'm definitely lacking some understanding about how these methods work. Can anyone fill me in?
You've probably already read this section of Apple's docs about memory management, but I'll point you to the section about the Object Ownership Policy just in case. You are only responsible for managing the memory of objects you "own". To quote the docs:
You own any object you create.
You "create" an object using a method whose name begins with “alloc” or “new” or contains “copy” (for example, alloc, newObject, or mutableCopy).
If you own an object, you are responsible for relinquishing ownership when you have finished with it. [ie: release]
If you do not own an object, you must not release it.
The "Simple Examples" section of those docs provide good elaboration, but to put the points above in the context of your specific questions:
How am I supposed to memory manage these "intermediate" objects?
The good news is: you don't. Ignore the the memory management aspect of the "intermediate" objects in your example.
Were they just created or did they always exist?
They may have always existed, or they may have just been created. The beauty of objective-c is that you, as a consumer of those objects, don't have to care.
Can I retain them, and if I release the object that created them, will they be released as well?
You don't need to retain them if you're just passing them on to some other function, or using them as intermediate values yourself in your own calculations within the function. Say, for example, that you're returning the stringValue from your example function to someone else. There's no point in retaining it just to return it.
If you DO happen to retain it, then yes, you are responsible for issuing a corresponding release message as some point. You might, for example, retain the stringValue from your example if you want to hold on to that value as a property in your own instance. Objective-C uses reference counting. If you need that object to stick around for a long time, you must retain it so that someone else's release message doesn't cause it to vanish if the retain count falls to 0.
Are they autoreleased?
Depends. Let's say you ask for a string from instanceOfNSWhatever. If instanceOfNSWhatever has to create that string just special for you (in order to service your request), but doesn't otherwise care about that string, then yes... instanceOfNSWhatever probably put that string into the autorelease pool. If the string was already a property of instanceOfNSWhatever and it was just sending it to you in response to your request, then no, it probably wasn't autoreleased.
Again, the beauty is: you don't know and don't need to care. Since instanceOfNSWhatever created the string, it is responsible for managing it. You can ignore the memory management unless you add to the string by sending it a retain message.
What if I run [instanceOfNSWhatever stringValue] a million times in a loop? Can I dispose of all those NSStrings as needed?
No need. Again... stringValue isn't yours to manage because you didn't create it. As a technical note, if instanceOfNSWhatever really did have to create 1 million copies of stringValue to service your 1 million calls, it probably put them all in an autorelease pool, which would be drained at the end of the current cocoa event loop. Fortunately, unless you send each of those stringValue objects a retain message, you can gleefully ignore the memory management question here.
You basically manage all your memory according to the Memory Management Programming Guide for Cocoa. In short, however, you basically only need to worry about objects that you "own". You own an object if you create it (in Cocoa, you create an object by specifically allocating it using alloc or copying it using copy or one of their derivatives). If you own an object, you are responsible for releasing it when you are finished with it.
Any other object is, therefore, not owned by you. If you need to use such an object for any extended period (for example, outside the scope in which you received it), you need to specifically take ownership of the object by either sending it a retain message or copying it.
To answer your last question, if you are creating a lot of temporary objects in a loop or some other way, you can create your own autorelease pools. See the documentation for NSAutoreleasePool for more information about using them. Please note, however, that you should really only do this after you've profiled your application and found that it is using too much memory and would benefit from this kind of optimization.
Finally, if you are creating and releasing a lot of heavy objects and don't want to rely on autorelease pools, you can specifically allocate and initialize them and then make sure to release them on your own as soon as you're finished with them. Most objects that have convenience creators have similar initializers for creating the object specifically.
When working on the iPhone/iPod Touch, the autorelease objects are released when your application exits. This may be what you don't want. Especially when working with images or large chunks of data. To insure large pools of memory that are tagged autorelease get released sooner, create local autorelease pools. Like this:
NSAutoreleasePool *localPool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
-- do something that creates large autorelease memory blocks --
[localPool drain];
If you don't do this, you will find your application exiting unexpectedly.
I'll tell you a simple rules I wish I'd known when I first started Objective-C :)
If an method contains the words "alloc" or "copy" then you must [release] the object when finished.
If a method does not contain these words, you must [retain] it for it to remain valid outside of your function.
If you call [retain] you must later call [release] when finished.
This covers practically all you need to know about the basics of memory management.
ObjC makes heavy use of what are known as "auto release" pools. Objects returned from non alloc/copy functions are placed into these pools and automatically freed after your function exists.
That is why you do not need to release the results of something like [obj stringValue].