Skip to main content

Do not use garbage collection to catch memory leak

Garbage collection is a technique that automatically releases unnecessary memory. It's very famous because many programming languages adopted garbage collection after John McCarthy implemented it in Lisp. However, there are a few people who misunderstand what garbage collection does. If you think garbage collection prevents a memory leak, unfortunately, you are one of them.

Garbage collection cannot prevent a memory leak. There is no way to avoid all memory leaks if you are using Turing-complete language. To understand it you should know what a memory leak is. Wikipedia describes a memory leak as the following:

a type of resource leak that occurs when a computer program incorrectly manages memory allocations in such a way that memory which is no longer needed is not released.

Briefly, a memory leak is a bug that doesn't release a memory that you don't use. So it is first to find the memory which will not be used in order to detect memory leaks. Unfortunately, it is impossible. I'll explain the reason with the code below. When should x be freed?


Generally, x should be released after use(x). However, what if some_function does not end? If some_function never returns because there is an infinite loop, use(x) will never be called. In this case, x has no future access. Thus keeping this memory while running some_function is a memory leak. If you want to make this function have no memory leak, you need to determine when to release x before executing some_function. It's impossible. It's the halting problem. There is no way to static analyze whether some_function runs forever or not.

It's the reason that there is no way to find all memory leaks. So all automatic memory management schemes, including garbage collection, don't guarantee to catch all memory leaks. They try to release memory which applications will not use. They release only memory that can not be accessed apparently, rather than freeing all unnecessary memory. Formally speaking, all automatic memory management schemes use a sound algorithm in the question "Is it safe to free this memory?" even though the algorithm is not complete.

Releasing only memory which is safe to free is the goal of using garbage collection. Your program doesn't have a dangling pointer if you use it instead of managing memory manually. It means you are free from use-after-free bugs or double-free bugs. In conclusion, garbage collection is not for memory efficiency, but memory safety.

If you are not familiar with memory management, you can reduce the number of memory leaks by using garbage collection. You should not choose garbage-collected languages to catch memory leaks. You should not think your program doesn't have a memory leak because you used garbage-collected languages. As I said before, there is no method to catch all memory leaks. You should diagnose the source code manually to find them. You should use automatic memory management schemes, including garbage collection, as a tool to enhance safety.

This article is a translation of the article written in Korean. Please see this link to see the original post.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Understanding Aspect-Oriented Programming with Python Examples

Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) manages code by grouping it into independent modules known as objects, emphasizing the crucial principle of Separation of Concerns. This means each object should focus on its specific responsibilities. However, real-world applications often feature functionalities that are common across multiple objects or modules, such as logging, security, transaction management, and performance monitoring. These functionalities are called Cross-cutting Concerns. Challenge of Cross-Cutting Concerns Scattering These cross-cutting concerns, when handled solely with OOP, create two major problems. The first problem is Scattering , which is when code for a specific functionality is spread across multiple places through copying and pasting. For instance, imagine adding user permission checks and logging code to every function. The same logging and permission checking code would repeatedly appear within each method. Tangling The other issue is Tangling . This refe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Iterator Adapters in Rust

An Iterator that takes another iterator and returns a new one is called an iterator adapter . The name "adapter" comes from one of the GoF's design patterns, the adapter pattern . However, in reality, it corresponds more to the decorator pattern , so if you pay too much attention to the name, you might get confused about its purpose. So it's better not to worry too much about the name. Enough complaining about the name, what does an iterator adapter do? An iterator adapter adds a task to be performed when the iterator iterates. This will be easier to understand when you see an example. The map function is one of the famous adapters. The iterator returned by the map function for those who have used functional languages iterates over new values transformed from the original values. Besides, various adapters are already implemented in the standard library. Among them, the most frequently used are those that are convenient to use with loops. Examples include the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference Between the clear Command in Linux and Mac

I've been writing a series of posts about CSI Sequences, but we rarely use CSI Sequences directly. However, there is a CSI Sequence that we use unknowingly. It's the clear command that clears the screen. The clear command basically uses two types of CSI sequences. One is CSI H ( Cu rsor P osition, a.k.a CUP); it moves the cursor to the beginning of the screen. The cursor is at the top-left corner after the command ends, thanks to CUP. The second CSI Sequence is CSI 2 J ( E rase in D isplay, a.k.a. ED), which is used to clear the entire screen. Linux and Mac use these two sequences; they behave the same way up to this point. However, Linux's clear and Mac's differ in their subsequent actions. In a nutshell, Linux's clear clears the scrollback buffer, while Mac's does not. Linux's one prints CSI 3 J after the two sequences. CSI 3 J is an extension of the Escape Sequence introduced by xterm that removes lines stored in the scrollback buffer. Since be...
Post a Comment
Read more