Suppose a program has memory leaks.
1) When a process dies (normally or segmentation fault), are those leaked memory freed?
2) What about other resources a process holds?
With most modern operating systems (linux, windows from around NT 3.5), yes.
Stack and heap memory is freed and file descriptors are closed on all modern system, I think.
On POSIX systems there are a number of resources that are not freed when a process exits, shared semaphores, message queues and memory segments. These are meant to be persistent between processes, so they simply can't. It is the responsibility of the application to free them.
It could do that e.g with on_exit handlers, but usually there is a simpler way. For memory segments you would typically use shm_unlink after all processes have opened such a segment. The segment then ceases to exist when the last process (and its file descriptor to the segment) is closed.
1) Yes, the memory is freed.
2) Different process model? I don't know what you mean by that, but once a program dies, all the memory that it malloc'd or new'd is then returned to the OS and will be reallocated to another program later.
3) Once a program exits, all allocated memory is returned to the OS, however until the process is wait()ed by another process, there is a small amount of data such as the exit status waiting around for someone to collect it. On linux, I believe, a normal process from bash/init will be waited and cleaned up automatically.
You can safely assume with modern linux systems that the memory will be freed... However... Its not a guaruntee, and certainly not best practice.
Related
It is expected that threads, on which pthread_detach() was not called, should be pthread_join()ed before the main thread returns from main() or calls exit().
However, what happens when this requirement is not met? What happens when a process terminates when it still contains unjoined and not detached threads?
I would find it odd to learn that these other threads’ resources will not be reclaimed until system reboot. However, if these resources will be reclaimed, then there may be little need to bother about joining or detaching, mightn’t it?
It is up to the operating system. Typical modern operating systems will indeed reclaim the memory and descriptors (handles) used by abandoned threads. This is similar to how dynamically allocated memory works: typical modern systems will reclaim it when a process exits, even if the process never explicitly freed the memory. For certain unusual programs, this can be a meaningful performance optimization, because freeing lots of small resources takes time and the OS may be able to do it more quickly.
However, what happens when this requirement is not met? What happens when a process terminates when it still contains unjoined and not detached threads?
On any system with POSIX threads that is not ancient, the non-joined threads simply "evaporate" into space when the SYS_exit system call is performed by the main thread.
I would find it odd to learn that these other threads’ resources will not be reclaimed until system reboot.
They will be.
However, if these resources will be reclaimed, then there may be little need to bother about joining or detaching, mightn’t it?
It depends on what these threads do. The danger is at-exit data races.
In C++, global variables are destructed (usually via atexit or equivalent registration mechanism), FILE handles are deleted, etc. etc.
If non-joined thread tries to access any such resource, it will likely crash with SIGSEGV, possibly producing core dump, and an unclean process exit code, both of which are often quite undesirable.
In my program written with C and C++, I will new an object to fulfill the task, then delete the object.
At the moment after new object but before delete object, if the user presses ctrl+c to break the process, that will cause delete not to be called and a memory leak occurs.
What should I do to avoid this situation?
Also, if the memory was reclaimed by the OS, what about the opened files? Are they closed by the OS or should I close them manualy?
In a virtual-memory-based system, all memory is returned to the OS when a process is terminated, regardless of whether it was freed explicitly in the application code. The same might not be true of other resources, however, which you may want to free cleanly. In which case, you need to provide a custom signal handler for the SIGINT signal (which is received on Ctrl+C), see e.g. http://linux.die.net/man/2/sigaction.
Pressing CtrlC will send a SIGINT to the process, which by default does a mostly-orderly shutdown, including tearing down the memory manager and releasing all allocated heap and stack. If you need to perform other tasks then you will need to install a SIGINT handler and perform those tasks yourself.
If you allocated any SYSV Shared Memory Segments using shmget(2) then you must clean up after yourself with shmctl(2).
If you allocated any POSIX Shared Memory Segments using shm_open(3) then you must clean up after yourself with shm_unlink(3).
Both SYSV and POSIX shared memory segments persist past process termination. You can see what persists using the ipcs(1) tool.
Of course, if you haven't used any SYSV or POSIX shared memory segments, then this is all just noise. :)
You are subscribing to a rather common misconception that heap blocks that are not freed, but still accessible at the time a program exists are leaks. This is not true. Leaked blocks are those which no pointer still references, hence they can't be freed.
Through the years of playing with (and breaking) lots of perfectly good kernels, I have never managed to sufficiently break a virtual memory manager to the point where it no longer reclaimed the entire address space of a process once it exited. Unless you are working with a kernel clearly marked as 'new and experimental', you will have better luck winning the lottery than finding a system that doesn't employ an effective virtual memory manager.
Don't put cruft in your code just to get a perfect score in Valgrind. If you have no real clean up tasks to do other than freeing memory that still has valid references, you don't need to bother. If someone throws a kill -9 to your program, you won't be able to handle it and will see the old behavior repeat.
If you have file descriptors to clean up, shared locks to relinquish, streams to flush or whatever else must happen so other processes don't miss you when you're gone, by all means take care of that. Just don't go adding code that does nothing to solve a non-problem, it just seems silly to do so.
Note
This was originally going to be a comment, but is far too long and SO frowns on writing a novel one comment at a time.
When CTRL+C is pressed in a Linux console, the SIGINT signal is sent to the application which, if the signal has no handler, will terminate the program, returning all memory to the OS. This of course would make it pointless to do any freeing of memory, since all memory will freed once the program exists. However, if you would like to handle the CTRL+C SIGINT signal (maybe to write out some last data to a file or do some other cleanup), you can use the function signal() to install a function to be called when the signal is received. Check out the man page for this function if you want to learn more.
If the process quits, a memory leak will NOT normally occur.
Most of the memory you allocate will be freed on Ctrl+C. If you see memory usage not return to its prior level, it is almost certainly caused by buffered filesystem blocks.
However, you should definitely clean things up, in particular if you have used any other types of resources:
Files created in temporary directories won't be deleted. This includes /dev/shm, leaving such a file could be considered a "memory leak".
System V or posix shared memory segments won't get thrown away when your process quits. If this bothers you, clean them up specifically. Alternatively, clean them up on a subsequent run.
Normally a leak (of a persistent or semi-persistent object e.g. file) doesn't matter if a subsequent run doesn't leak more memory. So cleaning up on a future run is good enough.
Imagine a process running every 5 minutes from "cron", if it crashes on each run and leaves some mess, it's still ok provided each run cleans up the mess from the previous crash.
The OS will reclaim the memory allocated by the process when the process exits as a result of Ctrl-C or any other means.
In C, if I allocate a memory using malloc and during the execution, the program encounters an exception/error and exits with a manually incorporated exit(1) statement in the program, does C compiler automatically frees the memory before making the unexpected exit or do I have to manually do this just before the exit(1) line in the program.
I use the gcc-4.5.2 compiler on Ubuntu 32bit platform.
Once you call exit, OS takes all the allocated memory back. So no need to call free.
Edit:
But It's generally good practice to free memory you allocated in your program as you may overlook it the call to free when you modify it in the future.
On a well-designed operating system, when a process exits (either using exit(), die(), abort() or raise() or by being killed by an error, a signal or whatever else), the operating system should free up all the resources used by the process, including stack space, heap, the allocated memory (usually on the heap), close the open file descriptors (if it's a *NIX system) etc.
However, I won't go for 'No need to call free()'. It's a bad programming/design concept if you don't explicitly free() memory that you have malloc()'ed and although you eventually can rely on the OS to do this for you, it may cause memory leaks when you later modify your project not to exit but you forget to free() your used memory.
I have a number of data structures (trees, queues, lists), created using dynamic allocation routines (malloc, calloc). Under some critical conditions, the program should terminate. Traversing all objects to free their memory takes long time.
Is it safe to avoid traversing all data structures just before program stops? If yes, does it apply to all operating systems and environments (e.g. multiple threads)?
All the memory dynamically allocated by a process is released back to the OS on process termination, doesn't matter intentionally or via a crash. Same happens with files and sockets - ref counts inside the kernel get decremented and resources get released if there are no more references.
An exception to the above might be the shared memory.
When a program (i.e., a process) terminates, all local and heap memories are automatically reclaimed. Note that these memory regions are specific to a process. So, you may skip the traverse and deallocation just before the program termination. However, if the program uses a shared/global memory, then you need to explicitly reclaim that. Finally, it applies, at least, Linux/Unix and Windows. I believe it applies to all modern operating systems.
Short answer: yes. In any modern OS, memory is private to each process, and once the process exits, all memory is reclaimed by the OS (unless the OS itself is broken).
You don't have to free() all your dynamically-allocated memory before terminating the program. The operating system releases all the memory that was owned by the process anyway. It also closes any network connections that you had open.
In my program written with C and C++, I will new an object to fulfill the task, then delete the object.
At the moment after new object but before delete object, if the user presses ctrl+c to break the process, that will cause delete not to be called and a memory leak occurs.
What should I do to avoid this situation?
Also, if the memory was reclaimed by the OS, what about the opened files? Are they closed by the OS or should I close them manualy?
In a virtual-memory-based system, all memory is returned to the OS when a process is terminated, regardless of whether it was freed explicitly in the application code. The same might not be true of other resources, however, which you may want to free cleanly. In which case, you need to provide a custom signal handler for the SIGINT signal (which is received on Ctrl+C), see e.g. http://linux.die.net/man/2/sigaction.
Pressing CtrlC will send a SIGINT to the process, which by default does a mostly-orderly shutdown, including tearing down the memory manager and releasing all allocated heap and stack. If you need to perform other tasks then you will need to install a SIGINT handler and perform those tasks yourself.
If you allocated any SYSV Shared Memory Segments using shmget(2) then you must clean up after yourself with shmctl(2).
If you allocated any POSIX Shared Memory Segments using shm_open(3) then you must clean up after yourself with shm_unlink(3).
Both SYSV and POSIX shared memory segments persist past process termination. You can see what persists using the ipcs(1) tool.
Of course, if you haven't used any SYSV or POSIX shared memory segments, then this is all just noise. :)
You are subscribing to a rather common misconception that heap blocks that are not freed, but still accessible at the time a program exists are leaks. This is not true. Leaked blocks are those which no pointer still references, hence they can't be freed.
Through the years of playing with (and breaking) lots of perfectly good kernels, I have never managed to sufficiently break a virtual memory manager to the point where it no longer reclaimed the entire address space of a process once it exited. Unless you are working with a kernel clearly marked as 'new and experimental', you will have better luck winning the lottery than finding a system that doesn't employ an effective virtual memory manager.
Don't put cruft in your code just to get a perfect score in Valgrind. If you have no real clean up tasks to do other than freeing memory that still has valid references, you don't need to bother. If someone throws a kill -9 to your program, you won't be able to handle it and will see the old behavior repeat.
If you have file descriptors to clean up, shared locks to relinquish, streams to flush or whatever else must happen so other processes don't miss you when you're gone, by all means take care of that. Just don't go adding code that does nothing to solve a non-problem, it just seems silly to do so.
Note
This was originally going to be a comment, but is far too long and SO frowns on writing a novel one comment at a time.
When CTRL+C is pressed in a Linux console, the SIGINT signal is sent to the application which, if the signal has no handler, will terminate the program, returning all memory to the OS. This of course would make it pointless to do any freeing of memory, since all memory will freed once the program exists. However, if you would like to handle the CTRL+C SIGINT signal (maybe to write out some last data to a file or do some other cleanup), you can use the function signal() to install a function to be called when the signal is received. Check out the man page for this function if you want to learn more.
If the process quits, a memory leak will NOT normally occur.
Most of the memory you allocate will be freed on Ctrl+C. If you see memory usage not return to its prior level, it is almost certainly caused by buffered filesystem blocks.
However, you should definitely clean things up, in particular if you have used any other types of resources:
Files created in temporary directories won't be deleted. This includes /dev/shm, leaving such a file could be considered a "memory leak".
System V or posix shared memory segments won't get thrown away when your process quits. If this bothers you, clean them up specifically. Alternatively, clean them up on a subsequent run.
Normally a leak (of a persistent or semi-persistent object e.g. file) doesn't matter if a subsequent run doesn't leak more memory. So cleaning up on a future run is good enough.
Imagine a process running every 5 minutes from "cron", if it crashes on each run and leaves some mess, it's still ok provided each run cleans up the mess from the previous crash.
The OS will reclaim the memory allocated by the process when the process exits as a result of Ctrl-C or any other means.