In a previous post ( My program never releases the memory back. Why? ) I show that FastMM can cache (read as hold for itself) pretty large amounts of memory. If your application just loaded a large data set in RAM, after releasing the data, you will see that impressive amounts of RAM are not released back to the memory pool.
I looked around and it seems that calling the SetProcessWorkingSetSize API function will "flush" the cache to disk. However, I cannot decide when to call this function. I wanted to call it at the end of the OnClick event on the button that is performing the RAM intensive operation. However, some people are saying that this may cause AV.
If anybody used this function successfully, please let me (us) know.
Many thanks.
Edit:
1. After releasing the data set, the program still takes large amounts of RAM. After calling SetProcessWorkingSetSize the size returns to few MB. Some argue that nothing was released back. I agree. But the memory foot print is now small AND it is NOT increasing back after using the program normally (for example when performing normal operation that does not involves loading large data sets). Unfortunately, there is no way to demonstrate that the memory swapped to disk is ever loaded back into memory, but I think it is not.
2. I have already demonstrated (I hope) this is not a memory leak:
My program never releases the memory back. Why?
How to convince the memory manager to release unused memory
If SetProcessWorkingSetSize would solve your problem, then your problem is not that FastMM is keeping hold of memory. Since this function will just trim the workingset of your application by writing the memory in RAM to the page file. Nothing is released back to Windows.
In fact you only have made accessing the memory again slower, since it now has to be read from disc. This method has the same effect as minimising your application. Then Windows presumes you are not going to use the application again soon and also writes the workingset in RAM to the pagefile. Windows does a good job of deciding when to write RAM to the pagefile and tries to keep the most used memory in RAM as long as it can. It will make the workinset size smaller (write to pagefile) when there is little RAM left. I would not mess with it just to give the illusion that you program is using less memory while in fact it is using just as much as before, only now it is slower to access. Memory that is accessed again will be loaded into RAM again and make the workinset size grow again. Touching less memory keeps the workingset size smaller.
So no, this will not help you forcing FastMM to release the memory. If your goal is for your application to use less memory you should look elsewhere. Look for leaks, look for heap fragmentations look for optimisations and if you think FastMM is keeping you from doing so you should try to find facts to support it. If your goal is to keep your workinset size small you could try to keep your memory access local. Maybe FastMM or another memory manager could help you with it, but it is a very different problem compared to using to much memory. And maybe this function does help you solve the problem you are having, but I would use it with care and certainly not use it just to keep the illusion that your program has a low memory usage.
I agree with Lars Truijens 100%, if you don't than you can check the FasttMM memory usage via FasttMM calls GetMemoryManagerState and GetMemoryManagerUsageSummary before and after calling API SetProcessWorkingSetSize.
Are you sure there is a problem? Working sets might only decrease when there really is a memory shortage.
Problem solved:
I don't need to use SetProcessWorkingSetSize. FastMM will eventually release the RAM.
To confirm that this behavior is generated by FastMM (as suggested by Barry Kelly) I crated a second program that allocated A LOT of RAM. As soon as Windows ran out of RAM, my program memory utilization returned to its original value.
I used this function just once, when I implemented TWebBrowser. This component took me so much memory even if I destroyed the instance.
Related
My Delphi6 program crashes because the TotalAddrSpace (THeapStatus) at some point hits the 2GB level, upon which it crashes. I have been able to increase the limit the 4GB level (using {$SetPEFlags $20}), but that only delays the eventual crash.
The problem is that the TotalUncommitted memory keeps increasing for some reason, while the TotalCommitted memory and also the TotalAllocated memory nicely stabilize at an acceptable level (about 550 MB).
I cannot quite figure out WHY the TotalUncommitted memory keeps increasing and eventually makes the TotalAddrSpace hit the 2GB (now: 4GB) level and the program crashes.
In the program I use many dynamic arrays, whose length I increase or reduce regularly with a simple adjustment via the SetLength command. Does this regular increasing/decreasing of dynamic arrays in this way effectively lead to an increase-beyond-bounds of the TotalUncommitted memory?
Any advice or insight is very much appreciated.
Also if you know of a general mechanism to somehow actively decrease the TotalUncommitted memory ...
Thanks for all help!!
My problem turned out to be one of Heap Fragmentation (or my understanding of it).
I used Setlength to increase/decrease, upon need, a dynamic array always in steps of 5 positions. Given the size of each array element, this apparently lead the OS to reserve much more memory than actually needed, which made the Heap.TotalUncommited grow without bounds, as did the Heap. TotalAddrSpace.
I tried different step sizes to see the impact. With a somewhat bigger step size the problem vanished.
I most strongly suggest you run a special build that has MemCheck included. It's a really great tool to detect memory leaks in your application. More modern Delphi versions have some of this built in (in part thanks to FastMem), but this one has been around since the first Delphi versions and works great on versions 5,6,7.
This is a follow-up to this question: What could explain the difference in memory usage reported by FastMM or GetProcessMemoryInfo?
My Delphi XE application is using a very large amount of memory which sometimes lead to an out of memory exception. I'm trying to understand why and what is causing this memory usage and while FastMM is reporting low memory usage, when requesting for TProcessMemoryCounters.PageFileUsage I can clearly see that a lot of memory is used by the application.
I would like to understand what is causing this problem and would like some advise on how to handle it:
Is there a way to know what is contained in that memory and where it has been allocated ?
Is there some tool to track down memory usage by line/procedure in a Delphi application ?
Any general advise on how to handle such a problem ?
EDIT 1 : Here are two screenshots of FastMMUsageTracker indicating that memory has been allocate by the system.
Before process starts:
After process ends:
Legend: Light red is FastMM allocated and dark gray is system allocated.
I'd like to understand what is causing the system to use that much memory. Probably by understanding what is contained in that memory or what line of code or procedure did cause that allocation.
EDIT 2 : I'd rather not use the full version of AQTime for multiple reasons:
I'm using multiple virtual machines for development and their licensing system is a PITA (I'm already a registered user of TestComplete)
LITE version doesn't provide enough information and I won't waste money without making certain the FULL version will give me valuable information
Any other suggestions ?
Another problem might be heap fragmentation. This means you have enough memory free, but all the free blocks are to small. You might see it visually by using the source version of FastMM and use the FastMMUsageTracker.pas as suggested here.
You need a profiler, but even that won't be enough in lots of places and cases. Also, in your case, you would need the full featured AQTime, not the lite version that comes with Delphi XE and XE2. (AQTIME is extremely expensive, and annoyingly node-locked, so don't think I'm a shill for SmartBear software.)
The thing is that people often mistake AQTime Allocation Profiler as only a way to find leaks. It can also tell you where your memory goes, at least within the limits of the tool. While running, and consuming lots of memory, I click Run -> Get Results.
Here is one of my applications being profile in AQTime with its Allocation Profiler showing exactly what class is allocating how many instances on the heap and how much memory those use. Since you report low Delphi heap usage with FastMM, that tells me that most of AQTime's ability to analyze by delphi class name will also be useless to you. However by using AQTime's events and triggers, you might be able to figure out what areas of your application are causing you a "memory usage expense" and when those occur, what the expense is. AQTime's real-time instrumentation may be sufficient to help you narrow down the cause even though it might not find for you what function call is causing the most memory usage automatically.
The column names include "Object Name" which includes things like this:
* All delphi classes, and their instance count and heap usage.
* Virtual Memory blocks allocated via Win32 calls.
It can detect Delphi and C/C++ library allocations on the heap, and can see certain Windows-API level memory allocations.
Note the live count of objects, the amount of memory from the heap that is used.
I usually try to figure out the memory cost of a particular operation by measuring heap memory use before, and just after, some expensive operation, but before the cleanup (freeing) of the memory from that expensive operation. I can set event points inside AQTime and when a particular method gets hit or a flag gets turned on by me, I can measure before, and after values, and then compare them.
FastMM alone can not even detect a non-delphi allocation or an allocation from a heap that is not being managed by FastMM. AQTime is not limited in that way.
I'm finding AQTime hard to use because it interferes with the original program too much. If I have a program that uses, for example, 300MB of ram I can use AQTime's allocation profiler without a problem, and find out where most of the memory is being used. However I notice that running under AQTime, the original program uses more like 1GB while it's being profiled.
Right now I'm trying to reduce memory usage in a program which is using 1.4GB of memory. If I run it under AQTime, then the original program uses all of the 2GB address space and crashes. I can of course invent a smaller set of test data and estimate how the memory usage will scale with the full data set - but the reason I'm using a profiler in the first place is to try to avoid this sort of guesswork.
I already have AQTime set to 'Collect stack information - None' and all the check boxes to do with checking memory integrity are switched off, and I've tried restricting the area being profiled to just a few classes but this doesn't seem to improve anything. Is there a way to use AQTime that produces a smaller overhead? Or failing that, what other approaches are there to get a good idea of the memory being used?
The app is written in Delphi 2010 and I'm using AQTime 6.
NB: On top of the increased memory usage, running under AQTime slows the app down an awful lot, making the whole exercise not just impossible but impractical too :-P
AFAIK the allocation profiler will track memory block allocation regardless of profiling areas. Profiling areas are used to track classes instantiation. Of course memory-profiling an application that allocates a large amount of memory is a issue, you may try to use the LARGE_ADRESS_AWARE flag, and the /3GB boot switch, or use a 64 bit system (as long as you have at least 4GB of memory, or more). Also you can take snapshot of the application state before it crashes, to see where the memory is allocated. Profiling takes time, anyway, you may have to let it run for a while.
I have a MDI program. When It starts it takes 2-3MB of RAM. Then, in this program I create about 260 MDI child windows (each has a TStringGrid, a bitmap and some other controls) and display some data. The application needs about 500MB to load all those windows. If I close each MDI child manually, the application still uses 160MB of RAM. Why it doesn't return to few MB of RAM? Should I worry about this? 160MB it is A LOT for a system that has only 1GB or RAM!!
Note: I use the WORKING SET column in Task Manager to see RAM statistics. Maybe I need a better tool to read the RAM utilization. (Private Working Set is just a bit smaller than Working Set).
This is not a leak!
FastMM (set on aggressive) indicates no memory leak when I close the program. See my Answer post for additional evidence that it isn't a leak.
I release stuff
Many people told me that closing a child window only hides it. I know that. I use "Action:= caFree" to actually release the forms. Each form is responsible for releasing the controls it holds.
Answer
I have found that FastMM is responsible for this. See the answer I posted below.
Delphi 7, Win 7 32 bit
Similar posts:
Can memory be cleaned up?
When to call SetProcessWorkingSetSize? (Convincing the memory manager to release the memory)
Task Manager is not the right tool to detect memory leaks. Delphi allocates large blocks of memory and keeps them later for future use, so certain increase in allocated memory is expected even after you release all resources. Any other results (and more detailed answers) can be obtained only by using specialize memory analysis tools. AQTime is the first that comes to mind, or if you can find old but useful MemProof, it would help you a lot (MemProof is free and for memory analysis it's more handy than AQTime).
It is very well possible that FastMM does not show memory leaks upon application termination (for instance because all objects are TComponents that are owned, and the ownser frees them).
But in the mean time, while running those components can still be around, and not freed soon enough.
Did you use the FastMM unit that shows a form with the current memory usage?
< Edit >
This is the FastMMUsageTracker.pas in the directory ...\FastMM\Demos\Usage Tracker.
Use that unit, then call the ShowFastMMUsageTracker function in it.
You can refresh that form every once in a while to see how your memory consumption grows.
I have put a FastMMUsageTrackerProject sample on-line, including an update of FastMM4 that makes it easier to check and debug memory leaks:
the form in the FastMMUsageTracker unit is now resizable, and the controls in it anchor in the right way
there is a new FastMmBootstrapUnit unit making debugging specific memory leaks easier
Something I had at hand last week, was a 3rd party DLL, which was not written in Delphi.
The DLL had a memory leak using Windows GlobalAlloc calls, which are not tracked by FastMM.
NB: I'm about to post an update to FastMM on
--jeroen
Answer:
I just removed FastMM from my project and the program returned to few MB after freeing all those child windows. Many may argue that this is not a misbehavior and that FastMM is doing this in order to do some kind of kinky memory optimizations. They may be true. However, it may be good for MY application but it may not be good of other running applications.
So, at least we know who causes this. I worried to a whole day that may program is leaking RAM like an old bucket. I am relieved now.
UPDATE:
To confirm that this behavior is generated by FastMM (as suggested by Barry Kelly) I created a second program that allocated A LOT of RAM. As soon as Windows ran out of RAM, my program memory utilization returned to its original value.
(Note: I am not saying there is a bug in FastMM!)
My program is not leaking. Problem solved.
The main limitation of FastMM's memory leak tracing is that it can only run when you shut down the program. It could be that you're still holding references to objects or other data that gets cleaned up when you shut down the program, but stays around until then.
For example, when you close the MDI child windows, do you call Free or Release on them, or just make them disappear? If they're hidden but not freed, they'll still be in memory.
If you close an MDI form it is not freed automatically. Use Action = caFree (google for that) to make sure the form is also freed.
I have seen recently a strange behavior in my program. After creating large amounts of objects (500MB of RAM) then releasing them, the program's memory footprint does not return to its original size. It still shows a footprint of 160MB (Private working set).
Normal behavior?
Borland's memory manager does not behave like this, so if possible please confirm (or infirm) this is a normal behavior for FastMM: If you have a handy program in which you create a rather complex MDI child (containing several controls/objects), can you create in a loop 250 instances of that MDI child in memory (at the same time) then release them all and check the memory footprint. Please make sure that you consume at least 200-300MB or RAM with those MDI childs.
Especially those that still using Delphi 7 can see the difference by temporary disabling FastMM.
Thanks
If anybody is interested, especially if you want some proof this is not a memory leak (I hope it is not a mem leak in my code - this is also one of the points of this post: to check if it is my fault), here are the original discussions:
My program never releases the memory back. Why?
How to convince the memory manager to release unused memory
Dear Altar, I'm dazzled at how off the point you are in your guesses and how you don't listen to what people told you many times before.
Let's set some things straight. Memory management 101. Please read thoroughly.
When you allocate memory in Delphi, there are two memory managers involved.
System memory manager
First one is a system memory manager. This one is built into Windows and it gives memory in 4kb sized pages.
But it doesn't always give you memory in RAM (or physical memory). Your data can be kept on the hard drive, and read back every time you need to access it. This is awfully slow.
In other words, imagine you have 512Mb of physical memory. You run two programs, each requesting 1Gb of memory. What does OS do?
It grants both requests. Both apps get 1Gb of memory each. Both think all the memory is "in memory". But in fact, only 512Mb can be kept in RAM. The rest is stored in page file, although your app does not know that. It just works slow.
Working set size
Now, what is a "working set size" you are measuring?
It's the part of the allocated memory that is kept in RAM.
If you have an application which allocates 1Gb of memory, and you only have 512 Mb of RAM, then it's working set size will be 512Mb. Although it "uses" 1Gb of memory!
When you run another application which needs memory, OS will automatically free some RAM by moving rarely used blocks of "memory" to the hard drive.
Your virtual memory allocation will stay the same, but more pages will be on the hard drive and less in RAM. Working set size will decrease.
From this, you should have understood by this point, that it's pointless to try and minimize the working set size. You're achieving nothing. You're not freeing memory in any sense. You're just offloading the data to the hard drive.
But the system will do that automatically when it needs to. And there's no point making room in RAM until it's needed. You're just slowing down your application, that's all.
TLDR: "Working set size" is not "how much memory application uses". It's "how much is ready right now". Don't try to minimize it, you're just making things worse.
Delphi memory manager
OS gives you virtual memory in pages of 4Kb. But often you need it in much smaller chunks. For instance, 4 bytes for your integer, or 32 bytes for some structure. The solution?
Application memory manager, such as FastMM or BorlandMM or others.
It's job is to allocate memory in pages from the operating system, then give you small chunks of those pages when you need it.
In other words, when you ask for 14 bytes of memory, this is what happens:
You ask FastMM for 14 bytes of memory.
FastMM asks OS for 1 page of memory (4096 bytes).
OS grants one page of memory, backing it up with RAM (it's stored in actual RAM).
FastMM saves that page, cuts 14 bytes of it and gives to you.
When you ask for another 14 bytes, FastMM just cuts another 14 bytes from the same page.
What happens when you release memory? The same thing backwards:
You release 14 bytes to FastMM. Nothing happens.
You release another 14 bytes. FastMM sees that the 4096 byte page it allocated is now completely unused.
Therefore it releases the page, returning it to the system.
It's worth noting that FastMM cannot release just 14 bytes to the system. It has to release memory in pages. Until the whole page is free, FastMM cannot do a thing. Nobody can.
So, why is my working set size so big, even though I released everything?
First, your working set size is not what you should be measuring. Virtual memory consumption is. But if you have big working set size, your virtual memory consumption will be high too.
What's the problem? You should be able to figure out by this point.
Let's say you allocate 1kb, then 3kb of memory. How much virtual memory have you allocated? 4kb, 1 page.
Now you release 3Kb. How much virtual memory do you use now? 1Kb? No, it's still 1 page. You cannot allocate less than 1 page from the system. You're still using 4096 bytes of virtual memory.
Imagine if you do that 1000 times. 1kb, 3kb, 1kb, 3kb, 1kb, 3kb and so on. You allocate 1000 * 4kb = 4 mb like that, and then you release all the 3kb parts. How much virtual memory do you use now?
Still 4 mb. Because you allocated 1000 pages at first. Of every page you took 1kb and 3kb chunks. Even if you release 3kb chunks, 1kb chunks will continue to keep every single page you allocated in memory. And every page takes 4kb of virtual memory.
Memory manager cannot magically "move" all of your 1kb chunks together. This is impossible, because their virtual addresses can be referenced from somewhere in code. It's not a trait of FastMM.
But why with BorlandMM everything works better?
Coincidence. Maybe it just so happens that BorlandMM gives you memory in a slightly different way than FastMM does. Next thing you know, you change something in your app and BorlandMM acts just like FastMM did. It's impossible for a memory manager to completely prevent this effect, called memory fragmentation.
So what do I do?
Short answer is, not much until this bothers you.
You see, with modern operating systems, you're not really eating anyone's RAM. Per above, OS will automatically swap your pages out when it needs RAM for other applications. This should not be a concern.
And the "excessive" memory isn't lost. Although pages are allocated, 3kb of each is marked as "free". Next time your app needs memory, memory manager will use that space.
But if you really want to help it, you should reorganize your allocations so that the ones you're planning on keeping are done first, and the ones you will soon release are all allocated after that.
Like this: 1kb, 1kb, 1kb, ..., 3kb, 3kb, 3kb...
If you now release all the 3kb chunks, your virtual memory consumption will drop significantly.
This is not always possible. If it's impossible, then just do nothing. It's more or less alright like it is.
And P.S.
You shouldn't be allocating 500 forms in the first place. This is clearly not a way to go. Fix this, and you won't even have a need to think about memory allocation and releasing.
I hope this clears things up, because four posts on the same topic, frankly, is a bit too much.
IIRC, the Delphi memory manager does not immediately return free'd memory to the OS.
Memory is allocated in chunks of small, medium and large sizes, called blocks.
These blocks are kept for a while after their contents have been disposed to have them readyly available when another allocation is requested afterwards.
This limits the amount of system calls required for succesive allocation of multiple objects, and helps avoiding heap fragmentation.
Infirming: Delphi 2007, default memory manager (should be FastMM variation). Several tests on heavy objects:
Initial memory 2Mb, peak memory 30Mb, final memory 4Mb.
Initial memory 2Mb, peak memory 1Gb, final memory 5.5Mb.
What are the heapmanager stats (GetHeapStatus) on the point that 160MB is still allocated?
SOLVED
To confirm that this behavior is generated by FastMM (as suggested by Barry Kelly) I created a second program that allocated A LOT of RAM. As soon as Windows ran out of RAM, my program memory utilization returned to its original value.
Problem solved. Special thanks to Barry Kelly, the only person that pointed to the real "problem".