I'm seeing strange behavior with the allocations instrument in Xcode 8 and Swift 2.3. I have an object (A) on which deinit is being called, all but one of the objects that A references are being deallocated (the one that isn't is a separate memory issue as far as I can tell), but the object continues to be listed as "live" and persistent in the allocations instrument. Additionally, when I try to debug it's retains, all I see is:
Note that I've confirmed deinit is being executed by:
Adding a print line to the deinit method
Adding a breakpoint to the deinit method
Verifying that other objects that A references are de-allocated, and they receive a release (-1) ref count that claims to happen inside of the A.__deallocating_deinit method
However, for some unknown reason it appears to stick around.
After a few more hours of searching I finally managed to (mostly) figure it out.
In this case, I have class A which has 6 properties, one of which is an instance of class B. Class A registers block callbacks with class B. Class B receives events from outside of the main run loop, on a separate NSThread that wasn't properly wrapped in an #autoreleasepool. As a result, Class B was being retained longer than intended, which resulted in its blocks with callbacks to A being retained longer than intended.
The reason I say "mostly" figured it out is because class A registered all those blocks with [unowned self]. For a still unknown reason, that seemed to be enough to allow deinit to be executed, but not enough to actually free the object. Wrapping the other thread in #autoreleasepool allowed the app to release B, which was then enough to release A.
Related
Background
Our app has a class that attempts to implement the Receptionist Pattern for KVO observation. Other classes throughout the app (such as view controllers) create instances of this one Receptionist class to serve as the KVO observer. Each Receptionist instance keeps a copy of a block provided by the owner, which the Receptionist instance will invoke on the proper operation queue when a KVO notification arrives.
The Receptionist's dealloc method invokes the KVO removeObserver method. The Owner keeps the Receptionist instance as a strong-reference field, so when the Owner is deallocated, the Receptionist will remove itself as an observer in the process of being deallocated.
The Crash
We're seeing reports from the field of crashes when the KVO notification is received by a Receptionist instance on one thread while the same instance's dealloc is in progress on another thread. The Receptionist's implementation of observeValueForKeyPath:ofObject:change:context: is crashing on this line:
__weak typeof(self) weakSelf = self;
The stack trace in the crash report shows this as a call to objc_initWeak, which calls weak_register_no_lock, which calls _objc_fatal.
The object whose key is being observed by this particular Receptionist is never deallocated. The Owner is also not being deallocated; the Owner is replacing this Receptionist instance with a different one.
The Confusion
I can understand that it's not useful to create a weak reference to an object that's already being deallocated, but I would expect weakSelf to receive a nil value, not to cause a crash.
The documentation for objc_initWeak explicitly mentions setting the target to null if the argument to which the reference is desired has begun deallocation. That sounds like the desired behavior, but I don't think it's what I'm seeing. I'm not keen to replace that line with an explicit call to objc_initWeak, since I doubt I'd manage the deallocation properly.
Could it really be the Receptionist's responsibility to notice that its own deallocation is in progress before requesting a weak reference to self? I would assume that there's some window between when an NSObject's deallocation starts and when that object's dealloc method is called, so signalling within the object from the dealloc method sounds flaky.
Thank you for reading!
PS: heavily edited after reading the questions raised by Ken Thomases.
This has nothing to do with the creation of the weak reference. The line you cite should only be run in a context where something has a strong reference to self.
Think about it: the crash that you're seeing may be during that line within your observeValueForKeyPath:ofObject:change:context: implementation, but, since there's clearly a race between deallocation and the call of that method, the deallocation could also occur during dispatch of that method call (or some other point). You're vulnerable to different crashes. So, no changes to the implementation of the method could possibly fix the problem, since the problem could manifest before your method is even called.
It's your responsibility to keep a strong reference to an object if you're going to be calling methods on that object. Or, from the other perspective, to avoid calling methods on object pointers that you're not sure will live for the duration of the call (because you hold a strong reference or some other API guarantee).
With KVO, you need to remove observers before releasing your last strong reference.
There are some retain cycle in my iOS application.
For a particular viewController, stuck in a retain cycle, I have tried making all delegates weak. But when I simulate memory warning from simulator , didRecieveMemoryWarning is called , but deinit method is not called .
I want to print/see the owner of that viewController that is still holding it when didRecieveMemoryWarning is called. Is there any way I can do this.
If you are on Xcode 8 you can use the Memory Graph Debugger to visually see the active memory graph for objects in your projects. You can get to the Memory Graph Debugger by using the three circle icon shown below.
The Memory Graph Debugger was highlighted at WWDC 2016 in the following lecture, starting around 24:30.
https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2016/410/
No there is not a way to print the owners of an object as you describe, at least not exactly. iOS does not use garbage collection, it uses ARC (Automatic Reference Counting.) The system doesn't track owning references in ARC. Instead, each time you add an owning reference to an object the system increases a retain count, and every time you clear an owning reference the system decrements that retain count.
What you can do, though, is run your program with the memory instrument. (There is a debugging application called "Instruments", you pick a debugging template called an "instrument" that you use within the Instruments program.) With the memory instrument you can follow the life-cycle of an object, as well as tracking the number of active objects in your app's heap.. When you select an object in the list of currently active object you can see where in your program it was allocated and where the code that creates strong references comes from. Explaining how to use Instruments is beyond the scope of an SO post however. There are various tutorials and WWDC session videos on the subject. I suggest doing some searching.
As to your question, forcing a low memory warning would not cause an active view controller (one that is on-screen) to be released and it's deinit method to be called. The system maintains a strong reference to the view controller.
Also, you should make delegate references weak by default. Having a delegate reference be a strong reference is VERY unusual. I've only seen it once or twice, for specific reasons.
You can make a print on the deinit method like
class Person {
let name: String
init(name: String) {
self.name = name
print("\(name) is being initialized")
}
deinit {
print("\(name) is being deinitialized")
}
}
You can check this: Automatic Reference Counting
I am working on an app where I am presenting 100 sentences using AVAudioplayer. Rather than have 100 AVAudioplayer objects I wanted to just have one property and change the object associated with it on the fly. My code boils down to the following (though the lines arent immediately following each other in the actual code):
self.thePlayer = [[AVAudioPlayer alloc] initWithContentsOfURL:url1 error:&error];
self.thePlayer = [[AVAudioPlayer alloc] initWithContentsOfURL:url2 error:&error];
Does the object initialized with url1 get released when thePlayer is allocated and initialized a second time with url2, or are both objects only released when the view is dismissed? As I am dealing with 100 sound files I don't want them all hanging around in memory. I'm using ARC
Thanks in advance
In your specific case, guessing at what your code likely includes, the objects will probably be deallocated when you want them to be. That's a lot of "guessing," "likely," and "probably." You really need to understand how the memory management works in order to reason about it.
If the AVAudioPlayer is strongly referenced by anything else, then it won't be released until those strong references are gone. In other words, setting thePlayer won't deallocate the player if something else has a strong reference to it. (That "something" may be some part of the system frameworks, or even itself in some rare cases. It doesn't have to be your code.)
If the AVAudioPlayer has pending autorelease calls on it, then it won't be released until the autorelease pool drains (usually at the end of event loop, which basically means "when your method that UIKit called returns.") For example, if you create a large number of objects in a loop and immediately throw them away, they may or may not be deallocated until the autorelease pool drains. Again, autoreleases may be injected by system frameworks. In practice, this means that the object will usually be deallocated "soon" (in a small fraction of a second), but not necessarily immediately. You can clean up autoreleased objects sooner by using #autoreleasepool blocks, which is sometimes necessary if you create many temporary objects in a loop. This is not needed very often.
But to a first-order approximation, in many of the most common cases, yes, replacing the property will automatically and immediately deallocate the previous object.
It would be useful to show how you declared thePlayer. If they are synthesized properly the memory management would be handled automatically. It appears that you are using "self" to access thePlayer and if so you'd be setting the value through a setter/getter and that would handle the memory management for you. But I also notice that "Self" is capitalized and should not be in order to properly use the setter/getter. For more info on synthesized variables check out: What exactly does #synthesize do?. Note there are some places where you should NOT use self and this link discusses that: How does an underscore in front of a variable in a cocoa objective-c class work?.
I have this from either the Apple documentation or the swift book
When an instance gets deinitialized, you still have access to the
properties inside the instance and can manipulate them as needed
before the instance totally goes away.
I'm confused, do they mean when we for example do some mathematical action using the instances property in the deinit() method? or lets say when we print a property of type string that was part of a specific instance, also from the deinit() method?
If so, then is the deinit() method the only way to manipulate a property when it is being deinitialized?
if you have a swift class with a a var you know you have to clean up after because ARC can't free it (e.g. C memory), you can still do that in deinit. The pointers stored in the properties are still valid!
it isn't useful for much more though (ok end observing with the notification center or kvo) BECAUSE there is no guarantee WHEN deist is called. ONLY that it is called before deallocation [whenever that is]
deinit is called right before deallocation (when the retainCount reaches 0), so all your properties are still valid and you can print your string. You don't need to set properties to nil explicitly in deinit as that happens automatically.
This being said, most classes don't even need deinit implemented
Most of the time I used deinit to remove observer that the instance is registered to, post any notifications if needed, and things like that.
As far as I know, the deinit method gets called just before the instance gets deinitialized, to give you a final opportuninty to do whatever you need to do (cleanup, close a file, terminate a network connection, etc).
What the documentation says is that, at the time deinit is called your object has not been deinitialized yet (but will be very soon), so you still can (for the last time) access its properties.
As I was walking through some line of codes I stumbled upon this problem a couple of days ago,
- (void)dealloc {
...
[self.postOfficeService deregister:self];
...
}
Where the de-registration from the Post Office Service is an asynchronous operation, even if it's not self evident from the interface as there's no block or function passed to the postOfficeService.
The internal implementation of postOfficeService's -deregister method is something like that
// -deregister:(id)formerSubscriber implementation
//some trivial checks here
// deregister former subscriber
dispatch_asynch(_serialQueue, ^{
[self.subcribers removeObject:formerSubscriber];
});
...
The container, self.subscribers, does perfectly its job and contains only weak references. I.e. it is a NSHashTable.
As long as the deregistration method got called within the dealloc method, I keep on getting a crash while postOfficeService is trying to remove the former subscribers from its list inside that asynch block, which is used for thread safety purposes I guess.
Adding a breakpoint on [self.subscribers removeObject:formerSubscriber], it's possible to notice that the formerSubscriber object is always a NSZombieObject. That's the reason for crashes.
I know that it's possible to get thread safety for deregister method without incurring in this problem - I figure it should be enough use the dispatch_synch in lieu of the dispatch_asynch version
I think this is one of the reason why asynchronous methods shouldn't be called within dealloc methods.
But the question is how's possible to constantly get NSZombie objects even if we are in an ARC environment and the container objects is a NSHashTable (so it should be working I guess)?
The rule is: When dealloc is called, the object will be gone once dealloc returns to its caller (whoever called release when the reference count was 0), and nothing is going to prevent this.
Before ARC, you might have tried to retain an object inside dealloc - doesn't help; once dealloc is called the object will go (and dealloc will be called only once for it, in case you do a retain / release inside dealloc). ARC does the same, just automatically.
Using ARC doesn't means all your memory problem magically disappeared.
What happened is
[obj release] called by ARC
[obj dealloc]
[obj.postOfficeService deregister:obj]
[obj retain] - sorry you can't cancel the deallocation process
dispatch_async
free(obj) - from this point, obj is a zombie
GCD scheduling tasks
dispatch_async execute task
use obj - crash
The correct solution is use dispatch_sync to make sure you not trying to use object after it is deallocated. (be careful about dead lock)
Don't call asynchronous cleanup methods from dealloc. It's just not a good idea. Your -deregister should be synchronous.
NSHashTable stores pointers - it's the equivalent of __unsafe_unretained or assign - UNLESS it was created using +weakObjectsHashTable or the equivalent set of options (NSHashTableZeroingWeakMemory and NSPointerFunctionsObjectPersonality). If it was not created that way, it is quite likely you will have values pointing to zombie objects.
The question of "why am I getting zombies" is best answered by profiling your application with the Zombies template in Instruments and stimulating the required behavior.
I agree with the others that you should probably avoid asynchronous cleanup in your -dealloc method. However, it may be possible to fix this by making the parameter to -deregister: __unsafe_unretained. That method would then have to treat the pointer purely as a opaque value. It must not dereference it or message it. Unfortunately, you don't control the implementation of NSHashTable and can't guarantee that. Even if NSHashTable could be relied upon, the interface of -removeObject: takes an implicitly strong object pointer, so ARC might retain the pointer when it's copied from the unsafe unretained pointer.
You might use the C function API for hash tables (e.g. NSHashRemove()) as suggested in the overview for the NSHashTable class.