From 554fd8c5195424bdbcabf5de30fdc183aba391bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: upstream source tree Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:14:05 -0400 Subject: obtained gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2 from upstream website; verified gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2.sig; imported gcc-4.6.4 source tree from verified upstream tarball. downloading a git-generated archive based on the 'upstream' tag should provide you with a source tree that is binary identical to the one extracted from the above tarball. if you have obtained the source via the command 'git clone', however, do note that line-endings of files in your working directory might differ from line-endings of the respective files in the upstream repository. --- boehm-gc/doc/debugging.html | 306 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 306 insertions(+) create mode 100644 boehm-gc/doc/debugging.html (limited to 'boehm-gc/doc/debugging.html') diff --git a/boehm-gc/doc/debugging.html b/boehm-gc/doc/debugging.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7c65f2bb4 --- /dev/null +++ b/boehm-gc/doc/debugging.html @@ -0,0 +1,306 @@ + + +Debugging Garbage Collector Related Problems + + +

Debugging Garbage Collector Related Problems

+This page contains some hints on +debugging issues specific to +the Boehm-Demers-Weiser conservative garbage collector. +It applies both to debugging issues in client code that manifest themselves +as collector misbehavior, and to debugging the collector itself. +

+If you suspect a bug in the collector itself, it is strongly recommended +that you try the latest collector release, even if it is labelled as "alpha", +before proceeding. +

Bus Errors and Segmentation Violations

+

+If the fault occurred in GC_find_limit, or with incremental collection enabled, +this is probably normal. The collector installs handlers to take care of +these. You will not see these unless you are using a debugger. +Your debugger should allow you to continue. +It's often preferable to tell the debugger to ignore SIGBUS and SIGSEGV +("handle SIGSEGV SIGBUS nostop noprint" in gdb, +"ignore SIGSEGV SIGBUS" in most versions of dbx) +and set a breakpoint in abort. +The collector will call abort if the signal had another cause, +and there was not other handler previously installed. +

+We recommend debugging without incremental collection if possible. +(This applies directly to UNIX systems. +Debugging with incremental collection under win32 is worse. See README.win32.) +

+If the application generates an unhandled SIGSEGV or equivalent, it may +often be easiest to set the environment variable GC_LOOP_ON_ABORT. On many +platforms, this will cause the collector to loop in a handler when the +SIGSEGV is encountered (or when the collector aborts for some other reason), +and a debugger can then be attached to the looping +process. This sidesteps common operating system problems related +to incomplete core files for multithreaded applications, etc. +

Other Signals

+On most platforms, the multithreaded version of the collector needs one or +two other signals for internal use by the collector in stopping threads. +It is normally wise to tell the debugger to ignore these. On Linux, +the collector currently uses SIGPWR and SIGXCPU by default. +

Warning Messages About Needing to Allocate Blacklisted Blocks

+The garbage collector generates warning messages of the form +
+Needed to allocate blacklisted block at 0x...
+
+or +
+Repeated allocation of very large block ...
+
+when it needs to allocate a block at a location that it knows to be +referenced by a false pointer. These false pointers can be either permanent +(e.g. a static integer variable that never changes) or temporary. +In the latter case, the warning is largely spurious, and the block will +eventually be reclaimed normally. +In the former case, the program will still run correctly, but the block +will never be reclaimed. Unless the block is intended to be +permanent, the warning indicates a memory leak. +
    +
  1. Ignore these warnings while you are using GC_DEBUG. Some of the routines +mentioned below don't have debugging equivalents. (Alternatively, write +the missing routines and send them to me.) +
  2. Replace allocator calls that request large blocks with calls to +GC_malloc_ignore_off_page or +GC_malloc_atomic_ignore_off_page. You may want to set a +breakpoint in GC_default_warn_proc to help you identify such calls. +Make sure that a pointer to somewhere near the beginning of the resulting block +is maintained in a (preferably volatile) variable as long as +the block is needed. +
  3. +If the large blocks are allocated with realloc, we suggest instead allocating +them with something like the following. Note that the realloc size increment +should be fairly large (e.g. a factor of 3/2) for this to exhibit reasonable +performance. But we all know we should do that anyway. +
    +void * big_realloc(void *p, size_t new_size)
+{
+    size_t old_size = GC_size(p);
+    void * result;
+ 
+    if (new_size <= 10000) return(GC_realloc(p, new_size));
+    if (new_size <= old_size) return(p);
+    result = GC_malloc_ignore_off_page(new_size);
+    if (result == 0) return(0);
+    memcpy(result,p,old_size);
+    GC_free(p);
+    return(result);
+}
+
    + +
  4. In the unlikely case that even relatively small object +(<20KB) allocations are triggering these warnings, then your address +space contains lots of "bogus pointers", i.e. values that appear to +be pointers but aren't. Usually this can be solved by using GC_malloc_atomic +or the routines in gc_typed.h to allocate large pointer-free regions of bitmaps, etc. Sometimes the problem can be solved with trivial changes of encoding +in certain values. It is possible, to identify the source of the bogus +pointers by building the collector with -DPRINT_BLACK_LIST, +which will cause it to print the "bogus pointers", along with their location. + +
  5. If you get only a fixed number of these warnings, you are probably only +introducing a bounded leak by ignoring them. If the data structures being +allocated are intended to be permanent, then it is also safe to ignore them. +The warnings can be turned off by calling GC_set_warn_proc with a procedure +that ignores these warnings (e.g. by doing absolutely nothing). +
+ +

The Collector References a Bad Address in GC_malloc

+ +This typically happens while the collector is trying to remove an entry from +its free list, and the free list pointer is bad because the free list link +in the last allocated object was bad. +

+With > 99% probability, you wrote past the end of an allocated object. +Try setting GC_DEBUG before including gc.h and +allocating with GC_MALLOC. This will try to detect such +overwrite errors. + +

Unexpectedly Large Heap

+ +Unexpected heap growth can be due to one of the following: +
    +
  1. Data structures that are being unintentionally retained. This +is commonly caused by data structures that are no longer being used, +but were not cleared, or by caches growing without bounds. +
  2. Pointer misidentification. The garbage collector is interpreting +integers or other data as pointers and retaining the "referenced" +objects. A common symptom is that GC_dump() shows much of the heap +as black-listed. +
  3. Heap fragmentation. This should never result in unbounded growth, +but it may account for larger heaps. This is most commonly caused +by allocation of large objects. On some platforms it can be reduced +by building with -DUSE_MUNMAP, which will cause the collector to unmap +memory corresponding to pages that have not been recently used. +
  4. Per object overhead. This is usually a relatively minor effect, but +it may be worth considering. If the collector recognizes interior +pointers, object sizes are increased, so that one-past-the-end pointers +are correctly recognized. The collector can be configured not to do this +(-DDONT_ADD_BYTE_AT_END). +

    +The collector rounds up object sizes so the result fits well into the +chunk size (HBLKSIZE, normally 4K on 32 bit machines, 8K +on 64 bit machines) used by the collector. Thus it may be worth avoiding +objects of size 2K + 1 (or 2K if a byte is being added at the end.) +

+The last two cases can often be identified by looking at the output +of a call to GC_dump(). Among other things, it will print the +list of free heap blocks, and a very brief description of all chunks in +the heap, the object sizes they correspond to, and how many live objects +were found in the chunk at the last collection. +

+Growing data structures can usually be identified by +

    +
  1. Building the collector with -DKEEP_BACK_PTRS, +
  2. Preferably using debugging allocation (defining GC_DEBUG +before including gc.h and allocating with GC_MALLOC), +so that objects will be identified by their allocation site, +
  3. Running the application long enough so +that most of the heap is composed of "leaked" memory, and +
  4. Then calling GC_generate_random_backtrace() from backptr.h +a few times to determine why some randomly sampled objects in the heap are +being retained. +
+

+The same technique can often be used to identify problems with false +pointers, by noting whether the reference chains printed by +GC_generate_random_backtrace() involve any misidentified pointers. +An alternate technique is to build the collector with +-DPRINT_BLACK_LIST which will cause it to report values that +are almost, but not quite, look like heap pointers. It is very likely that +actual false pointers will come from similar sources. +

+In the unlikely case that false pointers are an issue, it can usually +be resolved using one or more of the following techniques: +

    +
  1. Use GC_malloc_atomic for objects containing no pointers. +This is especially important for large arrays containing compressed data, +pseudo-random numbers, and the like. It is also likely to improve GC +performance, perhaps drastically so if the application is paging. +
  2. If you allocate large objects containing only +one or two pointers at the beginning, either try the typed allocation +primitives is gc_typed.h, or separate out the pointerfree component. +
  3. Consider using GC_malloc_ignore_off_page() +to allocate large objects. (See gc.h and above for details. +Large means > 100K in most environments.) +
  4. If your heap size is larger than 100MB or so, build the collector with +-DLARGE_CONFIG. This allows the collector to keep more precise black-list +information. +
  5. If you are using heaps close to, or larger than, a gigabyte on a 32-bit +machine, you may want to consider moving to a platform with 64-bit pointers. +This is very likely to resolve any false pointer issues. +
+

Prematurely Reclaimed Objects

+The usual symptom of this is a segmentation fault, or an obviously overwritten +value in a heap object. This should, of course, be impossible. In practice, +it may happen for reasons like the following: +
    +
  1. The collector did not intercept the creation of threads correctly in +a multithreaded application, e.g. because the client called +pthread_create without including gc.h, which redefines it. +
  2. The last pointer to an object in the garbage collected heap was stored +somewhere were the collector couldn't see it, e.g. in an +object allocated with system malloc, in certain types of +mmaped files, +or in some data structure visible only to the OS. (On some platforms, +thread-local storage is one of these.) +
  3. The last pointer to an object was somehow disguised, e.g. by +XORing it with another pointer. +
  4. Incorrect use of GC_malloc_atomic or typed allocation. +
  5. An incorrect GC_free call. +
  6. The client program overwrote an internal garbage collector data structure. +
  7. A garbage collector bug. +
  8. (Empirically less likely than any of the above.) A compiler optimization +that disguised the last pointer. +
+The following relatively simple techniques should be tried first to narrow +down the problem: +
    +
  1. If you are using the incremental collector try turning it off for +debugging. +
  2. If you are using shared libraries, try linking statically. If that works, +ensure that DYNAMIC_LOADING is defined on your platform. +
  3. Try to reproduce the problem with fully debuggable unoptimized code. +This will eliminate the last possibility, as well as making debugging easier. +
  4. Try replacing any suspect typed allocation and GC_malloc_atomic +calls with calls to GC_malloc. +
  5. Try removing any GC_free calls (e.g. with a suitable +#define). +
  6. Rebuild the collector with -DGC_ASSERTIONS. +
  7. If the following works on your platform (i.e. if gctest still works +if you do this), try building the collector with +-DREDIRECT_MALLOC=GC_malloc_uncollectable. This will cause +the collector to scan memory allocated with malloc. +
+If all else fails, you will have to attack this with a debugger. +Suggested steps: +
    +
  1. Call GC_dump() from the debugger around the time of the failure. Verify +that the collectors idea of the root set (i.e. static data regions which +it should scan for pointers) looks plausible. If not, i.e. if it doesn't +include some static variables, report this as +a collector bug. Be sure to describe your platform precisely, since this sort +of problem is nearly always very platform dependent. +
  2. Especially if the failure is not deterministic, try to isolate it to +a relatively small test case. +
  3. Set a break point in GC_finish_collection. This is a good +point to examine what has been marked, i.e. found reachable, by the +collector. +
  4. If the failure is deterministic, run the process +up to the last collection before the failure. +Note that the variable GC_gc_no counts collections and can be used +to set a conditional breakpoint in the right one. It is incremented just +before the call to GC_finish_collection. +If object p was prematurely recycled, it may be helpful to +look at *GC_find_header(p) at the failure point. +The hb_last_reclaimed field will identify the collection number +during which its block was last swept. +
  5. Verify that the offending object still has its correct contents at +this point. +Then call GC_is_marked(p) from the debugger to verify that the +object has not been marked, and is about to be reclaimed. Note that +GC_is_marked(p) expects the real address of an object (the +address of the debug header if there is one), and thus it may +be more appropriate to call GC_is_marked(GC_base(p)) +instead. +
  6. Determine a path from a root, i.e. static variable, stack, or +register variable, +to the reclaimed object. Call GC_is_marked(q) for each object +q along the path, trying to locate the first unmarked object, say +r. +
  7. If r is pointed to by a static root, +verify that the location +pointing to it is part of the root set printed by GC_dump(). If it +is on the stack in the main (or only) thread, verify that +GC_stackbottom is set correctly to the base of the stack. If it is +in another thread stack, check the collector's thread data structure +(GC_thread[] on several platforms) to make sure that stack bounds +are set correctly. +
  8. If r is pointed to by heap object s, check that the +collector's layout description for s is such that the pointer field +will be scanned. Call *GC_find_header(s) to look at the descriptor +for the heap chunk. The hb_descr field specifies the layout +of objects in that chunk. See gc_mark.h for the meaning of the descriptor. +(If it's low order 2 bits are zero, then it is just the length of the +object prefix to be scanned. This form is always used for objects allocated +with GC_malloc or GC_malloc_atomic.) +
  9. If the failure is not deterministic, you may still be able to apply some +of the above technique at the point of failure. But remember that objects +allocated since the last collection will not have been marked, even if the +collector is functioning properly. On some platforms, the collector +can be configured to save call chains in objects for debugging. +Enabling this feature will also cause it to save the call stack at the +point of the last GC in GC_arrays._last_stack. +
  10. When looking at GC internal data structures remember that a number +of GC_xxx variables are really macro defined to +GC_arrays._xxx, so that +the collector can avoid scanning them. +
+ + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3