What is memory fragmentation?
I've heard the term "memory fragmentation" used a few times in the context of C++ dynamic memory allocation. I've found some questions about how to deal with memory fragmentation, but can't find a direct question that deals with it itself. So:
- What is memory fragmentation?
- How can I tell if memory fragmentation is a problem for my application? What kind of program is most likely to suffer?
- What are good common ways to deal with memory fragmentation?
Also:
- I've heard using dynamic allocations a lot can increase memory fragmentation. Is this true? In the context of C++, I understand all the standard containers (std::string, std::vector, etc) use dynamic memory allocation. If these are used throughout a program (especially std::string), is memory fragmentation more likely to be a problem?
- How can memory fragmentation be dealt with in an STL-heavy application?
Solution 1:
Imagine that you have a "large" (32 bytes) expanse of free memory:
----------------------------------
| |
----------------------------------
Now, allocate some of it (5 allocations):
----------------------------------
|aaaabbccccccddeeee |
----------------------------------
Now, free the first four allocations but not the fifth:
----------------------------------
| eeee |
----------------------------------
Now, try to allocate 16 bytes. Oops, I can't, even though there's nearly double that much free.
On systems with virtual memory, fragmentation is less of a problem than you might think, because large allocations only need to be contiguous in virtual address space, not in physical address space. So in my example, if I had virtual memory with a page size of 2 bytes then I could make my 16 byte allocation with no problem. Physical memory would look like this:
----------------------------------
|ffffffffffffffeeeeff |
----------------------------------
whereas virtual memory (being much bigger) could look like this:
------------------------------------------------------...
| eeeeffffffffffffffff
------------------------------------------------------...
The classic symptom of memory fragmentation is that you try to allocate a large block and you can't, even though you appear to have enough memory free. Another possible consequence is the inability of the process to release memory back to the OS (because each of the large blocks it has allocated from the OS, for malloc etc. to sub-divide, has something left in it, even though most of each block is now unused).
Tactics to prevent memory fragmentation in C++ work by allocating objects from different areas according to their size and/or their expected lifetime. So if you're going to create a lot of objects and destroy them all together later, allocate them from a memory pool. Any other allocations you do in between them won't be from the pool, hence won't be located in between them in memory, so memory will not be fragmented as a result. Or, if you're going to allocate a lot of objects of the same size then allocate them from the same pool. Then a stretch of free space in the pool can never be smaller than the size you're trying to allocate from that pool.
Generally you don't need to worry about it much, unless your program is long-running and does a lot of allocation and freeing. It's when you have mixtures of short-lived and long-lived objects that you're most at risk, but even then malloc will do its best to help. Basically, ignore it until your program has allocation failures or unexpectedly causes the system to run low on memory (catch this in testing, for preference!).
The standard libraries are no worse than anything else that allocates memory, and standard containers all have an Alloc template parameter which you could use to fine-tune their allocation strategy if absolutely necessary.
Solution 2:
What is memory fragmentation?
Memory fragmentation is when most of your memory is allocated in a large number of non-contiguous blocks, or chunks - leaving a good percentage of your total memory unallocated, but unusable for most typical scenarios. This results in out of memory exceptions, or allocation errors (i.e. malloc returns null).
The easiest way to think about this is to imagine you have a big empty wall that you need to put pictures of varying sizes on. Each picture takes up a certain size and you obviously can't split it into smaller pieces to make it fit. You need an empty spot on the wall, the size of the picture, or else you can't put it up. Now, if you start hanging pictures on the wall and you're not careful about how you arrange them, you will soon end up with a wall that's partially covered with pictures and even though you may have empty spots most new pictures won't fit because they're larger than the available spots. You can still hang really small pictures, but most ones won't fit. So you'll have to re-arrange (compact) the ones already on the wall to make room for more..
Now, imagine that the wall is your (heap) memory and the pictures are objects.. That's memory fragmentation..
How can I tell if memory fragmentation is a problem for my application? What kind of program is most likely to suffer?
A telltale sign that you may be dealing with memory fragmentation is if you get many allocation errors, especially when the percentage of used memory is high - but not you haven't yet used up all the memory - so technically you should have plenty of room for the objects you are trying to allocate.
When memory is heavily fragmented, memory allocations will likely take longer because the memory allocator has to do more work to find a suitable space for the new object. If in turn you have many memory allocations (which you probably do since you ended up with memory fragmentation) the allocation time may even cause noticeable delays.
What are good common ways to deal with memory fragmentation?
Use a good algorithm for allocating memory. Instead of allocating memory for a lot of small objects, pre-allocate memory for a contiguous array of those smaller objects. Sometimes being a little wasteful when allocating memory can go along way for performance and may save you the trouble of having to deal with memory fragmentation.
Solution 3:
Memory fragmentation is the same concept as disk fragmentation: it refers to space being wasted because the areas in use are not packed closely enough together.
Suppose for a simple toy example that you have ten bytes of memory:
| | | | | | | | | | |
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Now let's allocate three three-byte blocks, name A, B, and C:
| A | A | A | B | B | B | C | C | C | |
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Now deallocate block B:
| A | A | A | | | | C | C | C | |
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Now what happens if we try to allocate a four-byte block D? Well, we have four bytes of memory free, but we don't have four contiguous bytes of memory free, so we can't allocate D! This is inefficient use of memory, because we should have been able to store D, but we were unable to. And we can't move C to make room, because very likely some variables in our program are pointing at C, and we can't automatically find and change all of these values.
How do you know it's a problem? Well, the biggest sign is that your program's virtual memory size is considerably larger than the amount of memory you're actually using. In a real-world example, you would have many more than ten bytes of memory, so D would just get allocated starting a byte 9, and bytes 3-5 would remain unused unless you later allocated something three bytes long or smaller.
In this example, 3 bytes is not a whole lot to waste, but consider a more pathological case where two allocations of a a couple of bytes are, for example, ten megabytes apart in memory, and you need to allocate a block of size 10 megabytes + 1 byte. You have to go ask the OS for over ten megabytes more virtual memory to do that, even though you're just one byte shy of having enough space already.
How do you prevent it? The worst cases tend to arise when you frequently create and destroy small objects, since that tends to produce a "swiss cheese" effect with many small objects separated by many small holes, making it impossible to allocate larger objects in those holes. When you know you're going to be doing this, an effective strategy is to pre-allocate a large block of memory as a pool for your small objects, and then manually manage the creation of the small objects within that block, rather than letting the default allocator handle it.
In general, the fewer allocations you do, the less likely memory is to get fragmented. However, STL deals with this rather effectively. If you have a string which is using the entirety of its current allocation and you append one character to it, it doesn't simply re-allocate to its current length plus one, it doubles its length. This is a variation on the "pool for frequent small allocations" strategy. The string is grabbing a large chunk of memory so that it can deal efficiently with repeated small increases in size without doing repeated small reallocations. All STL containers in fact do this sort of thing, so generally you won't need to worry too much about fragmentation caused by automatically-reallocating STL containers.
Although of course STL containers don't pool memory between each other, so if you're going to create many small containers (rather than a few containers that get resized frequently) you may have to concern yourself with preventing fragmentation in the same way you would for any frequently-created small objects, STL or not.
Solution 4:
- What is memory fragmentation?
Memory fragmentation is the problem of memory becoming unusable even though it is theoretically available. There are two kinds of fragmentation: internal fragmentation is memory that is allocated but cannot be used (e.g. when memory is allocated in 8 byte chunks but the program repeatedly does single allocations when it needs only 4 bytes). external fragmentation is the problem of free memory becoming divided into many small chunks so that large allocation requests cannot be met although there is enough overall free memory.
- How can I tell if memory fragmentation is a problem for my application? What kind of program is most likely to suffer?
memory fragmentation is a problem if your program uses much more system memory than its actual paylod data would require (and you've ruled out memory leaks).
- What are good common ways to deal with memory fragmentation?
Use a good memory allocator. IIRC, those that use a "best fit" strategy are generally much superior at avoiding fragmentation, if a little slower. However, it has also been shown that for any allocation strategy, there are pathological worst cases. Fortunately, the typical allocation patterns of most applications are actually relatively benign for the allocators to handle. There's a bunch of papers out there if you're interested in the details:
- Paul R. Wilson, Mark S. Johnstone, Michael Neely and David Boles. Dynamic Storage Allocation: A Survey and Critical Review. In Proceedings of the 1995 International Workshop on Memory Management, Springer Verlag LNCS, 1995
- Mark S.Johnstone, Paul R. Wilson. The Memory Fragmentation Problem: Solved? In ACM SIG-PLAN Notices, volume 34 No. 3, pages 26-36, 1999
- M.R. Garey, R.L. Graham and J.D. Ullman. Worst-Case analysis of memory allocation algorithms. In Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 1972
Solution 5:
Update:
Google TCMalloc: Thread-Caching Malloc
It has been found that it is quite good at handling fragmentation in a long running process.
I have been developing a server application that had problems with memory fragmentation on HP-UX 11.23/11.31 ia64.
It looked like this. There was a process that made memory allocations and deallocations and ran for days. And even though there were no memory leaks memory consumption of the process kept increasing.
About my experience. On HP-UX it is very easy to find memory fragmentation using HP-UX gdb. You set a break-point and when you hit it you run this command: info heap and see all memory allocations for the process and the total size of heap. Then your continue your program and then some time later your again hit the break-point. You do again info heap. If the total size of heap is bigger but the number and the size of separate allocations are the same then it is likely that you have memory allocation problems. If necessary do this check few fore times.
My way of improving the situation was this. After I had done some analysis with HP-UX gdb I saw that memory problems were caused by the fact that I used std::vector for storing some types of information from a database. std::vector requires that its data must be kept in one block. I had a few containers based on std::vector. These containers were regularly recreated. There were often situations when new records were added to the database and after that the containers were recreated. And since the recreated containers were bigger their did not fit into available blocks of free memory and the runtime asked for a new bigger block from the OS. As a result even though there were no memory leaks the memory consumption of the process grew. I improved the situation when I changed the containers. Instead of std::vector I started using std::deque which has a different way of allocating memory for data.
I know that one of ways to avoid memory fragmentation on HP-UX is to use either Small Block Allocator or use MallocNextGen. On RedHat Linux the default allocator seems to handle pretty well allocating of a lot of small blocks. On Windows there is Low-fragmentation Heap and it adresses the problem of large number of small allocations.
My understanding is that in an STL-heavy application you have first to identify problems. Memory allocators (like in libc) actually handle the problem of a lot of small allocations, which is typical for std::string (for instance in my server application there are lots of STL strings but as I see from running info heap they are not causing any problems). My impression is that you need to avoid frequent large allocations. Unfortunately there are situations when you can't avoid them and have to change your code. As I say in my case I improved the situation when switched to std::deque. If you identify your memory fragmention it might be possible to talk about it more precisely.