Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Home
Go (Fundamentals) 101
Go Generics 101
Go Details & Tips 101
Go Optimizations 101
Go Quizzes 101
Go Q&A 101
Go Practices 101
Go Bugs 101
Go 101 Blog
Go 101 Apps & Libs
Theme: dark/light
Go Optimizations 101,Go Details & Tips 101andGo Generics 101are all updated for Go 1.25 now.The most cost-effective way to get them is throughthis book bundlein the Leanpub book store.

Memory Leaking Scenarios

When programming in a language supporting auto garbage collection, generally we don't need care about memory leaking problems, for the runtime will collect unused memory regularly. However, we do need to be aware of some special scenarios which may cause kind-of or real memory leaking. The remaining of the current article will list several such scenarios.

Kind-of Memory Leaking Caused by Substrings

Go specification doesn't specify whether or not the result string and base string involved in a substring expression should share the same underlyingmemory block to hostthe underlying byte sequences of the two strings. The standard Go compiler/runtime does let them share the same underlying memory block. This is a good design, which is both memory and CPU consuming wise. But it may cause kind-of memory leaking sometimes.

For example, after thedemo function in the following example is called, there will be about 1M bytes memory leaking (kind of), until the package-level variables0 is modified again elsewhere.

var s0 string // a package-level variable// A demo purpose function.func f(s1 string) {s0 = s1[:50]// Now, s0 shares the same underlying memory block// with s1. Although s1 is not alive now, but s0// is still alive, so the memory block they share// couldn't be collected, though there are only 50// bytes used in the block and all other bytes in// the block become unavailable.}func demo() {s := createStringWithLengthOnHeap(1 << 20) // 1M bytesf(s)}

To avoid this kind-of memory leaking, we can convert the substring to a[]byte value then convert the[]byte value back tostring.

func f(s1 string) {s0 = string([]byte(s1[:50]))}

The drawback of the above way to avoid the kind-of memory leaking is there are two 50-byte duplicates which happen in the conversion process, one of them is unnecessary.

We can make use of one ofthe optimizations made by the standard Go compiler to avoid the unnecessary duplicate, with a small extra cost of one byte memory wasting.

func f(s1 string) {s0 = (" " + s1[:50])[1:]}

The disadvantage of the above way is the compiler optimization may become invalid later, and the optimization may be not available from other compilers.

The third way to avoid the kind-of memory leaking is to utilize thestrings.Builder supported since Go 1.10.

import "strings"func f(s1 string) {var b strings.Builderb.Grow(50)b.WriteString(s1[:50])s0 = b.String()}

The disadvantage of the third way is it is a little verbose (by comparing to the first two ways). A good news is, since Go 1.12, we can call theRepeat function with thecount argument as1 in thestrings standard package to clone a string. Since Go 1.12, the underlying implementation ofstrings.Repeat will make use ofstrings.Builder, to avoid one unnecessary duplicate.

Since Go 1.18, aClone function has been added to thestrings standard package. It becomes the best way to do this job.

Kind-of Memory Leaking Caused by Subslices

Similarly to substrings, subslices may also cause kind-of memory leaking. In the following code, after theg function is called, most memory occupied by the memory block hosting the elements ofs1 will be lost (if no more values reference the memory block).

var s0 []intfunc g(s1 []int) {// Assume the length of s1 is much larger than 30.s0 = s1[len(s1)-30:]}

If we want to avoid the kind-of memory leaking, we must duplicate the 30 elements fors0, so that the aliveness ofs0 will not prevent the memory block hosting the elements ofs1 from being collected.

func g(s1 []int) {s0 = make([]int, 30)copy(s0, s1[len(s1)-30:])// Now, the memory block hosting the elements// of s1 can be collected if no other values// are referencing the memory block.}

Kind-of Memory Leaking Caused by Not Resetting Pointers in Lost Slice Elements

In the following code, after theh function is called, the memory block allocated for the first and the last elements of slices will get lost.

func h() []*int {s := []*int{new(int), new(int), new(int), new(int)}// do something with s ...return s[1:3:3]}

As long as the returned slice is still alive, it will prevent any elements ofs from being collected, which in consequence prevents the two memory blocks allocated for the twoint values referenced by the first and the last elements ofs from being collected.

If we want to avoid such kind-of memory leaking, we must reset the pointers stored in the lost elements.

func h() []*int {s := []*int{new(int), new(int), new(int), new(int)}// do something with s ...// Reset pointer values.s[0], s[len(s)-1] = nil, nilreturn s[1:3:3]}

We often need to reset the pointers for some old slice elements inslice element deletion operations.

Real Memory Leaking Caused by Hanging Goroutines

Sometimes, some goroutines in a Go program may stay in blocking state for ever. Such goroutines are called hanging goroutines. Go runtime will not kill hanging goroutines, so the resources allocated for (and the memory blocks referenced by) the hanging goroutines will never get garbage collected.

There are two reasons why Go runtime will not kill hanging goroutines. One is that sometimes it is hard for Go runtime to judge whether or not a blocking goroutine will be blocked for ever. The other is sometimes we deliberately make a goroutine hanging. For example, sometimes we may let the main goroutine of a Go program hang to avoid the program exiting.

We should avoid hanging goroutines which are caused by some logic mistakes in code design.

Real Memory Leaking Caused by Not Stoppingtime.Ticker Values Which Are Not Used Any More

When atime.Timer value is not used any more, it will be garbage collected after some time. But this is not true for atime.Ticker value. We should stop atime.Ticker value when it is not used any more.

Real Memory Leaking Caused by Using Finalizers Improperly

Setting a finalizer for a value which is a member of a cyclic reference group mayprevent all memory blocks allocated for the cyclic reference group from being collected. This is real memory leaking, not kind of.

For example, after the following function is called and exits, the memory blocks allocated forx andy are not guaranteed to be garbage collected in future garbage collecting.

func memoryLeaking() {type T struct {v [1<<20]intt *T}var finalizer = func(t *T) { fmt.Println("finalizer called")}var x, y T// The SetFinalizer call makes x escape to heap.runtime.SetFinalizer(&x, finalizer)// The following line forms a cyclic reference// group with two members, x and y.// This causes x and y are not collectable.x.t, y.t = &y, &x // y also escapes to heap.}

So, please avoid setting finalizers for values in a cyclic reference group.

By the way, weshouldn't use finalizers as object destructors.

Kind-of Resource Leaking by Deferring Function Calls

Please readthis article for details.

(more articles ↡)

TheGo 101 project is hosted onGithub.Welcome to improveGo 101 articlesby submitting corrections for all kinds of mistakes,such as typos, grammar errors, wording inaccuracies,description flaws, code bugs and broken links.

If you would like to learn some Go details and facts every serveral days,please follow Go 101's official Twitter account@zigo_101.

The digital versions of this book are available at the following places:
Tapir, the author of Go 101, has been on writing the Go 101 series booksand maintaining the go101.org website since 2016 July.New contents will be continually added to the book and the website from time to time.Tapir is also an indie game developer.You can also support Go 101 by playingTapir's games(made for both Android and iPhone/iPad):
Individual donationsvia PayPal are also welcome.
Articles in this book:
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp