I am in the process of optimizing my app and making sure memory management is properly implemented. As I found the didUnload / dealloc / willAppear not reliable for implementing my memory cleanup, I decided to implement my own method so I can have full control of this memory management.
Definition of my arrays in the header file
#property (retain) NSMutableArray *selectedCardIDs;
#property (retain) NSMutableArray *selectedRowArray;
#property (retain) NSMutableArray *cardArray;
#property (retain) NSMutableArray *cardIDArray;
Here the release method:
- (void) willReleaseObjects {
[self.aCopyOfCardIDArray release];
[self.listOfItems release];
[self.aCopyListOfItems release];
[self.selectedCardIDs release];
[self.selectedRowArray release];
[self.cardArray release];
[self.cardIDArray release];
}
The arrays can get very large (> 1'000 entry each), why a release of those arrays is essential after the view is unloaded. I explicitly call this function in the IBAction method, such as:
- (IBAction) stopDictionary:(UIBarButtonItem *) sender {
[self closeDatabase];
[self willReleaseObjects];
[self dismissModalViewControllerAnimated:YES];
}
I debugged the code and it is actually executing each release, however when I diagnose the memory allocation with Instruments, it seems to free up only partial memory, actually almost nothing why the memory consumption of course is increasing every time I load this view again, which is no good at all.
Any idea, why my memory is not released here? Thanks.
Don't call release on a property as you risk something very bad happening in case you have any properties declared as assign or copy. You could potentially release a returned instance which is already autoreleased.
Instead either release the instance variable behind it or set the property to nil. Either way you will achieve the correct result. In case you have any Key/Value observers on your properties the best way is to set the properties to nil which will automatically propagate the values to any observers:
- (void) willReleaseObjects {
self.aCopyOfCardIDArray = nil;
self.listOfItems = nil;
...
}
Related
I've wrote a class which gets an image from the camera. Its header is as follows:
typedef void(^ImageTakenCallback)(UIImage *image);
#interface ImageGetter : NSObject <UIImagePickerControllerDelegate, UIPopoverControllerDelegate>
{
UIImagePickerController *picker;
ImageTakenCallback completionBlock
}
-(void) requestImageInView:(UIView*)view withCompletionBlock:(void(^)(UIImage*))completion;
#end
As you can see, I'm trying to make something like that in client code:
[[[ImageGetter alloc] init] requestImageInView:_viewController.view withCompletionBlock:^(UIImage *image) {
// do stuff with taken image
}];
Here is how I've implemented ImageGetter:
-(void) requestImageInView:(UIView*)view withCompletionBlock:(ImageTakenCallback)completion
{
completionBlock = [completion copy];
picker = [[UIImagePickerController alloc] init];
picker.sourceType = UIImagePickerControllerSourceTypeCamera;
picker.delegate = self;
[view addSubview:picker.view];
}
- (void)imagePickerController:(UIImagePickerController *)picker_
didFinishPickingImage:(UIImage *)image
editingInfo:(NSDictionary *)editingInfo
{
[picker.view removeFromSuperview];
picker = nil;
completionBlock(image);
}
The problem is since I'm using ARC, the instance of ImageGetter is deallocated instantly after call for -requestImage..., so the weak delegate of picker becomes nil.
Which are common ways to resolve such a issue?
I can see some ways, however, none of them seems to be quite right:
retain ImageGetter from client code, for example, assign it to a strong property. The problems here are: I wont be able to release it by setting this property to nil right after I get image, because this will mean setting retain count of object to 0 while executing the method of this object. Also, I don't want unnecessary properties (well, it is not a big problem, but nevertheless).
disable ARC for ImageGetter and manually retain at start itself and release after sending image to callback.
make static manager ImageGetterManager, which will have method requestImage..., it will create ImageGetter instances, retain them, redirect the requestImage... call, get callbacks from them and release. That seems the most consistent way, but is not it a bit complex for such a little code?
So how can I build such a class?
You can handle that within the ImageGetter class by creating and releasing a "self-reference".
In a class extension in the implementation file, declare a property
#interface ImageGetter ()
#property (strong, nonatomic) id selfRef;
#end
In requestImageInView:, set self.selfRef = self to prevent deallocation.
In the completion method, set self.selfRef = nil.
Remark: Actually you can manage the retain count even with ARC:
CFRetain((__bridge CFTypeRef)(self)); // Increases the retain count to prevent deallocation.
CFRelease((__bridge CFTypeRef)(self)); // Decreases the retain count.
But I am not sure if this is considered "good programming" with ARC or not.
Any feedback is welcome!
If this issue is introduced when switching to ARC, I should just go for option 1, and define it as a strong property.
However the behaviour is a bit different than you described for option 1: Setting the property to nil, does NOT mean the object is instantly released, it will just cause a decrement of the retaincount. ARC will handle that fine, the object will be released as soon as all referenced objects have 'released' it.
You can use the following strategy:
ImageGetter* imgGetter = [[ImageGetter alloc] init];
[imgGetter requestImageInView:_viewController.view withCompletionBlock:^(UIImage *image) {
// do stuff with taken image
[imgGetter releaseCompletionBlock]; // With this line, the completion block will retain automatically imgGetter, which will be released after the release of the completionBlock.
}];
Inside your ImageGetter implementation class, create a method that you can call inside the block like this.
-(void) releaseCompletionBlock
{
completionBlock = nil;
}
What I've found using the profiling tool in Xcode (Allocations) is that when you nil out a property it does not get deallocated until the parent class gets nilled out. Now let's say you want to make sure that you don't keep an expensive modal view controller in memory (assuming that it won't get used very often), if the expensive VC is a property, the allocated memory for that property will not get released when the property gets nilled out, which means that when the user wants to use the expensive VC again we'll allocate the same amount of memory each time. This is easy to spot in the profiler as the graph just keeps climbing.
However, if I only define the expensive VC as an instance variable and define my own setter&getter the profiler allocation graph actually decreases immediately when the variable gets nilled out and goes back up with the same amount upon each new allocation.
So my question is, why does a variable 'seem' to get deallocated when defined as an instance variable but not when defined as a property?
// What I call defining something as an instance variable:
#interface SomeViewController ()
{
UIPopoverController *somePopover;
}
// What I call defining something as a property
#property (nonatomic,strong) UIPopoverController *somePopover;
// Nilling out a property which does not get allocated unless it does not have a parent (root node memory graph wise)
self.somePopover = nil;
// Nilling out an instance variable which does make the memory graph in the profiler go down by the same amount it went up
somePopover = nil;
AFAIK, you cannot force an object to release all of its memory until its parent calls deallocate whereupon all of its children get cascade deallocated..
https://stackoverflow.com/a/7631831/2536815
I don't think your analysis is correct. If properly used, both a property and an instance variable have the same effect on reference counting: setting it to nil decreases the reference counter and if it goes to 0, the instance (be it a view controller or something else) is immediately deallocated.
If this is not the case in your app, then the cause must be something else than property vs. instance variable.
To further analyze your specific problem, we'll need more information. So please post your code, describe the set up for measuring the memory management effects, what the effective results are and what you would expect instead.
So it seems like I just confused hiding/showing an expensive view with allocating/nilling, the memory graph goes down when the view isn't visible and vice versa, really silly of me I know..
Just to verify that you cannot force arc to release a property/ivar I created a new xcode project where I just put the code below in the didFinishLaunching method. And unfortunately the memory allocated for the property and ivar are kept in memory no matter if I nil them out or not. In my case the code below generates 2.8 MB of memory and when this method finishes and the application launches the profiler memory graph stays at 2.8MB indefinitely..
#interface SSAppDelegate ()
{
NSMutableArray *ivVC;
}
#property (nonatomic, strong) NSMutableArray *propertyVC;
#end
#implementation SSAppDelegate
- (BOOL)application:(UIApplication *)application didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:(NSDictionary *)launchOptions
{
for (int k=0; k<10; k++) {
ivVC = [NSMutableArray array]; // Doesn't matter if it's alloc] init]
self.propertyVC = [NSMutableArray array];
for (int i=0; i<1000;i++) {
[ivVC addObject:#"..................................................................................."];
[_propertyVC addObject:#"..................................................................................."];
}
ivVC = nil;
self.propertyVC = nil;
}
self.window = [[UIWindow alloc] initWithFrame:[[UIScreen mainScreen] bounds]];
// Override point for customization after application launch.
self.window.backgroundColor = [UIColor whiteColor];
[self.window makeKeyAndVisible];
return YES;
}
I used to do this till once I found the retain count of one of my retained propery is zero before dealloc function. (This situation is normal or abnormal?)
NOTE: It's a RC condition, not ARC.
For example, I got 4 retained properties below, should they always be released in dealloc function?
If not, how could I know when to release, and when not to release? Manually judge the retainCount?
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *fileName;
#property (nonatomic, retain) UIImage *fullSizeImage;
#property (nonatomic, retain) UIImage *thumbnailImage;
#property (nonatomic, retain) UIImageView *checkedImageView;
- (void)dealloc {
[checkedImageView release];
checkedImageView = nil;
[fileName release];
fileName = nil;
[fullSizeImage release];
fullSizeImage = nil;
[thumbnailImage release];
thumbnailImage = nil;
[super dealloc];
}
Well, if the question is "always?", then Wain is almost right...
a SHORT answer is YES...
because in general, when someone set-up a property, it means he's going to use it as a property, that is he uses its setter method to initialize it.
BUT (LONG answer): NO, NOT ALWAYS:
what if you, somewhere in your code, initialize the private var associated to the property without it's setter method? Keep in mind that a property is not a var, but just a useful way to get methods from Xcode to get and set a var associated to it.
in other words, when you write in .h:
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *fileName;
and in .m:
#synthesize fileName;
you are declaring a var called fileName and are asking xcode to create 2 (invisible) methods for you:
a setter, used to set a new retained value in fileName:
-(void)setFileName:(NSString *)newString{
if (fileName == newString) {
return;
}
NSString *oldString = fileName;
fileName = [newString retain];
[oldString release];
}
and a getter, used to get the value of fileName:
-(NSString)fileName{
return fileName
}
so, when you somewhere in your code use:
self.fileName = #"ciao";
you are using the property setter method, exactly as if you'd call it directly (and you can do it, the invisible method setFileName: really exist):
[self setFileName:#"ciao"];
doing so, as you can see in the setter method, from now on fileName is retained, and so you should release it in dealloc.
BUT, to answer your question:
if you use the dot rule to set a new string in your var, ok, everything is fine,
but you may decide to set it in the standard way, somewhere, maybe just for mistake:
fileName = #"ciao";
// code
fileName = #"Hallo";
// code
fileName = #"Bye";
this way you are not using the property setter method, but you are using the var directly, and so fileName is not retained, and if you try to release it, well you may get a crash...
PS:
Manually judge the retainCount?
no, never do that
Yes, they should always be released in dealloc. If you get to dealloc and something is already released and not set to nil then you did something wrong with your memory management elsewhere in the app.
Technically in dealloc you don't need to set to nil after releasing but setting to nil after releasing is a generally good idea.
Your dealloc is unnecessarily calling the getter for each property and then immediately releasing it. Just assign nil to release the properties:
- (void)dealloc {
self.checkedImageView = nil;
self.fileName = nil;
self.fullSizeImage = nil;
self.thumbnailImage = nil;
[super dealloc];
}
Although if you are following the current trend of letting clang auto-generate your backing instance variables, then this is better, as it won't cause KVO side-effects:
- (void)dealloc {
[_checkedImageView release];
[_fileName release];
[_fullSizeImage release];
[_thumbnailImage release];
[super dealloc];
}
Yes, they should normally all be released. If you have a retain count of zero, that usually means you've made a mistake somewhere in your memory management code.
You ask: If not, how could I know when to release, and when not to release? Manually judge the retainCount?
Possibly, but you could also let Xcode help you, using static analysis. Go to Product -> Analyze. It will quite often help you find erroneous releases, etc.
When to release? Quite obviously, if your object was holding a reference to another object, and your object goes away, then it should stop holding a reference to the other object. Why would you even look at the retain count? Retain count is about other people holding on the same object, but they are none of your business. They should know what they are doing. So you release the object. You do your job; everyone else has to do theirs. The easiest way, as others said, is to assign
self.someproperty = nil;
If your object was the only one holding a reference, that other object will go away. If others held a reference, it won't go away. Just as everyone would expect. The "release" method should be the only one ever caring about what the retain count of an object is.
Given the following simple implementation:
#implementation RTUDeallocLogger
-(void)dealloc
{
NSLog(#"deallocated");
}
#end
we run the following code under ARC:
#implementation RTURunner
{
NSArray* arr;
}
-(void)run{
arr = [NSArray
arrayWithObjects:[[RTUDeallocLogger alloc]init],
[[RTUDeallocLogger alloc]init],
[[RTUDeallocLogger alloc]init],
nil];
NSLog(#"nulling arr");
arr = NULL;
NSLog(#"finished nulling");
}
#end
we get the following log output:
nulling arr
finished nulling
deallocated
deallocated
deallocated
I'd like to perform an action after all the deallocations have finished. Is this possible?
The aim of this question is really to understand a little more about the mechanics of ARC, in particular, at what point ARC triggers these deallocations, and whether or not this can ever happen synchronously when I drop references.
-dealloc is always synchronous, and occurs when the last strong reference is removed. In the case of your code though, +arrayWithObjects: is likely (if compiled at -O0 at least) putting the array in the autorelease pool, so the last strong reference is removed when the pool drains, not when you set the variable to NULL (you should use nil for ObjC objects, btw).
You can likely avoid having the object in the autorelease pool by using alloc/init to create, and you may (implementation detail, bla bla) be able to avoid it by compiling with optimizations turned on. You can also use #autoreleasepool { } to introduce an inner pool and bound the lifetime that way.
If I were an engineer from Apple I'd probably argue that your problem is probably your design. There are almost no reasons you'd want effectively to act by watching dealloc rather than having dealloc itself act.
[a huge edit follows: weak properties don't go through the normal property mechanisms, so they aren't KVO compliant, including for internal implicit KVO as originally proposed]
That said, what you can do is bind the lifetime of two objects together via object associations and use the dealloc of the latter as a call-out on the dealloc of the former.
So, e.g.
#import <objc/runtime.h>
#interface DeallocNotifier;
- (id)initWithObject:(id)object target:(id)target action:(SEL)action;
#end
#implementation DeallocNotifier
- (id)initWithObject:(id)object target:(id)target action:(SEL)action
{
... blah ...
// we'll use a static int even though we'll never access by this key again
// to definitely ensure no potential collisions from lazy patterns
static int anyOldKeyWellNeverUseAgain;
objc_setAssociatedObject(object, &anyOldKeyWellNeverUseAgain, self, OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN);
... blah ...
}
- (void)dealloc
{
[_target performSelector:_action];
}
#end
-(void)run{
arr = ...
[[DeallocNotifier alloc]
initWithObject:arr target:self action:#selector(arrayDidDealloc)];
/* you may not even need *arr in this case; I'm unclear as
to why you have an instance variable for something you don't
want to keep, so I guess it'll depend on your code */
} // end of run
- (void)arrayDidDealloc
{
NSLog(#"array was deallocated");
}
I've assumed you're able to tie the lifecycle of all the objects you're interested in to that of a single container; otherwise you could associate the notifier to all relevant objects.
The array has definitely gone by the time you get arrayDidDealloc.
at what point ARC triggers these deallocations
ARC inserts allocations/deallocations into your code based on static analysis. You can see where it does this by looking at the assembly of your source -- go to Product -> Generate Output in Xcode.
whether or not this can ever happen synchronously when I drop references
Retain/release/autorelease is always synchronous.
Your code
arr = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:[[RTUDeallocLogger alloc] init],
[[RTUDeallocLogger alloc] init],
[[RTUDeallocLogger alloc] init],
nil];
will be implicitly placing the objects into an autorelease pool. After the object is allocated, you don't want it retained (because the NSArray will do the retain once it receives the object), but you can't release it immediately, otherwise it will never make it to the NSArray alive. This is the purpose of autorelease - to cover the case where the object would otherwise be in limbo between two owners.
The retain count at alloc time is 1, then it's retained by the autoreleasepool and released by you, so the retain count remains 1. Then, it's retained by the NSArray, so the retain count becomes 2.
Later, the NSArray is released and so the retain count returns to 1, and the objects are finally cleaned up when the autorelease pool gets its chance to run.
You can make the autorelease act faster by nesting another pool - by wrapping your NSArray creation with an #autorelease{} clause.
i'm a little bit confused with memory management in view controllers.
Lets say i have header file like this:
#interface MyController : UIViewController {
NSMutableArray *data;
}
#property (nonatomic, retain) NSMutableArray *data;
#end
and .m file looks like that:
#implementation MyController
#synthesize data;
- (void)dealloc
{
[self.data release];
[super dealloc];
}
- (void)viewDidLoad
{
[super viewDidLoad];
if (self.data == nil)
self.data = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init];
}
- (void)viewDidUnload
{
[super viewDidUnload];
[self.data release];
self.data = nil;
}
Is that ok from the correct memory management point of view? Will that work after dealloc via Memory Warning? How You do that in your apps?
Thanks for your answers ;)
While the alloc-retain calls balance out in viewDidLoad and viewDidUnload and should prove no problem memory-wise, it would be cleaner to take ownership only once and relinquishing it once rather than twice.
- (void)viewDidLoad
{
[super viewDidLoad];
if (self.data == nil)
self.data = [NSMutableArray array];
}
and
- (void)viewDidUnload
{
[super viewDidUnload];
self.data = nil;
}
You are not guaranteed that viewDidUnload will ever get called. Unlike init/dealloc, which get called in pairs, viewDidUnload is undeterministically called. viewDidUnload is only called if there is a low memory situation and your view is not the active view.
Depending on how your model is created and the implications of it remaining in memory, it may make more sense for you not to get rid of it. An example of this may be that recreating that data may involve an expensive web service call. It therefore would be a bad user experience to have to wait for that data to get recreated. If it must absolutely go, a better strategy may be to cache the data to disk so that you can easily reconstruct it.
viewDidUnload should only contain cleaning up your IBOutlets and flushing easily recreatable data.
These lines from -viewDidUnload both release data:
[self.data release];
self.data = nil;
Since you're using the property setter in the second line, and data is a retained property, the setter will release data. This is an over-release, and it'll cause a crash either right away or later, depending on whether other objects also retain that object. To fix, simply delete the first line and rely on the setter to do the right thing.
The -dealloc method, on the other hand, shouldn't use the setter as it does now. You should change:
[self.data release];
to:
[data release];
data = nil; // this line isn't strictly necessary, but often considered good form
The reasoning here is that it's conceivable that this class could be subclassed, and someone might override the property setter in such a way that it has some side effects that could cause problems when the object is being deallocated. You should access the ivar directly -- notice that I left off the "self." so that we're dealing with the ivar and not the property accessor. (-init and -dealloc are the only places where you have to worry about that; use the property accessors everywhere else.)