# August, 2010

• #### Everybody thinks about garbage collection the wrong way

Welcome to CLR Week 2010. This year, CLR Week is going to be more philosophical than usual.

When you ask somebody what garbage collection is, the answer you get is probably going to be something along the lines of "Garbage collection is when the operating environment automatically reclaims memory that is no longer being used by the program. It does this by tracing memory starting from roots to identify which objects are accessible."

This description confuses the mechanism with the goal. It's like saying the job of a firefighter is "driving a red truck and spraying water." That's a description of what a firefighter does, but it misses the point of the job (namely, putting out fires and, more generally, fire safety).

Garbage collection is simulating a computer with an infinite amount of memory. The rest is mechanism. And naturally, the mechanism is "reclaiming memory that the program wouldn't notice went missing." It's one giant application of the as-if rule.¹

Now, with this view of the true definition of garbage collection, one result immediately follows:

If the amount of RAM available to the runtime is greater than the amount of memory required by a program, then a memory manager which employs the null garbage collector (which never collects anything) is a valid memory manager.

This is true because the memory manager can just allocate more RAM whenever the program needs it, and by assumption, this allocation will always succeed. A computer with more RAM than the memory requirements of a program has effectively infinite RAM, and therefore no simulation is needed.

Sure, the statement may be obvious, but it's also useful, because the null garbage collector is both very easy to analyze yet very different from garbage collectors you're more accustomed to seeing. You can therefore use it to produce results like this:

A correctly-written program cannot assume that finalizers will ever run at any point prior to program termination.

The proof of this is simple: Run the program on a machine with more RAM than the amount of memory required by program. Under these circumstances, the null garbage collector is a valid garbage collector, and the null garbage collector never runs finalizers since it never collects anything.

Garbage collection simulates infinite memory, but there are things you can do even if you have infinite memory that have visible effects on other programs (and possibly even on your program). If you open a file in exclusive mode, then the file will not be accessible to other programs (or even to other parts of your own program) until you close it. A connection that you open to a SQL server consumes resources in the server until you close it. Have too many of these connections outstanding, and you may run into a connection limit which blocks further connections. If you don't explicitly close these resources, then when your program is run on a machine with "infinite" memory, those resources will accumulate and never be released.

What this means for you: Your programs cannot rely on finalizers keeping things tidy. Finalizers are a safety net, not a primary means for resource reclamation. When you are finished with a resource, you need to release it by calling Close or Disconnect or whatever cleanup method is available on the object. (The IDisposable interface codifies this convention.)

Furthermore, it turns out that not only can a correctly-written program not assume that finalizers will run during the execution of a program, it cannot even assume that finalizers will run when the program terminates: Although the .NET Framework will try to run them all, a bad finalizer will cause the .NET Framework to give up and abandon running finalizers. This can happen through no fault of your own: There might be a handle to a network resource that the finalizer is trying to release, but network connectivity problems result in the operation taking longer than two seconds, at which point the .NET Framework will just terminate the process. Therefore, the above result can be strengthened in the specific case of the .NET Framework:

A correctly-written program cannot assume that finalizers will ever run.

Armed with this knowledge, you can solve this customer's problem. (Confusing terminology is preserved from the original.)

I have a class that uses Xml­Document. After the class is out of scope, I want to delete the file, but I get the exception System.IO.Exception: The process cannot access the file 'C:\path\to\file.xml' because it is being used by another process. Once the progam exits, then the lock goes away. Is there any way to avoid locking the file?

This follow-up might or might not help:

A colleague suggested setting the Xml­Document variables to null when we're done with them, but shouldn't leaving the class scope have the same behavior?

Bonus chatter: Finalizers are weird, since they operate "behind the GC." There are also lots of classes which operate "at the GC level", such as Weak­Reference GC­Handle and of course System.GC itself. Using these classes properly requires understanding how they interact with the GC. We'll see more on this later.

Unrelated reading: Precedence vs. Associativity Vs. Order.

Footnote

¹ Note that by definition, the simulation extends only to garbage-collected resources. If your program allocates external resources those external resources continue to remain subject to whatever rules apply to them.

• #### Everybody thinks about CLR objects the wrong way (well not everybody)

Many people responded to Everybody thinks about garbage collection the wrong way by proposing variations on auto-disposal based on scope:

What these people fail to recognize is that they are dealing with object references, not objects. (I'm restricting the discussion to reference types, naturally.) In C++, you can put an object in a local variable. In the CLR, you can only put an object reference in a local variable.

For those who think in terms of C++, imagine if it were impossible to declare instances of C++ classes as local variables on the stack. Instead, you had to declare a local variable that was a pointer to your C++ class, and put the object in the pointer.

C#C++
void Function(OtherClass o)
{
// No longer possible to declare objects
// with automatic storage duration
Color c(0,0,0);
Brush b(c);
o.SetBackground(b);
}
void Function(OtherClass o)
{
Color c = new Color(0,0,0);
Brush b = new Brush(c);
o.SetBackground(b);
}
void Function(OtherClass* o)
{
Color* c = new Color(0,0,0);
Brush* b = new Brush(c);
o->SetBackground(b);
}

This world where you can only use pointers to refer to objects is the world of the CLR.

In the CLR, objects never go out of scope because objects don't have scope.¹ Object references have scope. Objects are alive from the point of construction to the point that the last reference goes out of scope or is otherwise destroyed.

If objects were auto-disposed when references went out of scope, you'd have all sorts of problems. I will use C++ notation instead of CLR notation to emphasize that we are working with references, not objects. (I can't use actual C++ references since you cannot change the referent of a C++ reference, something that is permitted by the CLR.)

C#C++
void Function(OtherClass o)
{
Color c = new Color(0,0,0);
Brush b = new Brush(c);
Brush b2 = b;
o.SetBackground(b2);

}
void Function(OtherClass* o)
{
Color* c = new Color(0,0,0);
Brush* b = new Brush(c);
Brush* b2 = b;
o->SetBackground(b2);
// automatic disposal when variables go out of scope
dispose b2;
dispose b;
dispose c;
dispose o;
}

Oops, we just double-disposed the Brush object and probably prematurely disposed the OtherClass object. Fortunately, disposal is idempotent, so the double-disposal is harmless (assuming you actually meant disposal and not destruction). The introduction of b2 was artificial in this example, but you can imagine b2 being, say, the leftover value in a variable at the end of a loop, in which case we just accidentally disposed the last object in an array.

Let's say there's some attribute you can put on a local variable or parameter to say that you don't want it auto-disposed on scope exit.

C#C++
void Function([NoAutoDispose] OtherClass o)
{
Color c = new Color(0,0,0);
Brush b = new Brush(c);
[NoAutoDispose] Brush b2 = b;
o.SetBackground(b2);

}
void Function([NoAutoDispose] OtherClass* o)
{
Color* c = new Color(0,0,0);
Brush* b = new Brush(c);
[NoAutoDispose] Brush* b2 = b;
o->SetBackground(b2);
// automatic disposal when variables go out of scope
dispose b;
dispose c;
}

Okay, that looks good. We disposed the Brush object exactly once and didn't prematurely dispose the OtherClass object that we received as a parameter. (Maybe we could make [NoAutoDispose] the default for parameters to save people a lot of typing.) We're good, right?

Let's do some trivial code cleanup, like inlining the Color parameter.

C#C++
void Function([NoAutoDispose] OtherClass o)
{
Brush b = new Brush(new Color(0,0,0));
[NoAutoDispose] Brush b2 = b;
o.SetBackground(b2);

}
void Function([NoAutoDispose] OtherClass* o)
{
Brush* b = new Brush(new Color(0,0,0));
[NoAutoDispose] Brush* b2 = b;
o->SetBackground(b2);
// automatic disposal when variables go out of scope
dispose b;
}

Whoa, we just introduced a semantic change by what seemed like a harmless transformation: The Color object is no longer auto-disposed. This is even more insidious than the scope of a variable affecting its treatment by anonymous closures, for introduction of temporary variables to break up a complex expression (or removal of one-time temporary variables) are common transformations that people expect to be harmless, especially since many language transformations are expressed in terms of temporary variables. Now you have to remember to tag all of your temporary variables with [NoAutoDospose].

Wait, we're not done yet. What does SetBackground do?

C#C++
void OtherClass.SetBackground([NoAutoDispose] Brush b)
{
this.background = b;
}
void OtherClass::SetBackground([NoAutoDispose] Brush* b)
{
this->background = b;
}

Oops, there is still a reference to that Brush in the o.background member. We disposed an object while there were still outstanding references to it. Now when the OtherClass object tries to use the reference, it will find itself operating on a disposed object.

Working backward, this means that we should have put a [NoAutoDispose] attribute on the b variable. At this point, it's six of one, a half dozen of the other. Either you put using around all the things that you want auto-disposed or you put [NoAutoDispose] on all the things that you don't.²

The C++ solution to this problem is to use something like shared_ptr and reference-counted objects, with the assistance of weak_ptr to avoid reference cycles, and being very selective about which objects are allocated with automatic storage duration. Sure, you could try to bring this model of programming to the CLR, but now you're just trying to pick all the cheese off your cheeseburger and intentionally going against the automatic memory management design principles of the CLR.

I was sort of assuming that since you're here for CLR Week, you're one of those people who actively chose to use the CLR and want to use it in the manner in which it was intended, rather than somebody who wants it to work like C++. If you want C++, you know where to find it.

Footnote

¹ Or at least don't have scope in the sense we're discussing here.

² As for an attribute for specific classes to have auto-dispose behavior, that works only if all references to auto-dispose objects are in the context of a create/dispose pattern. References to auto-dispose objects outside of the create/dispose pattern would need to be tagged with the [NoAutoDispose] attribute.

[AutoDispose] class Stream { ... };

Stream MyClass.GetSaveStream()
{
[NoAutoDispose] Stream stm;
if (saveToFile) {
stm = ...;
} else {
stm = ...;
}
return stm;
}

void MyClass Save()
{
// NB! do not combine into one line
Stream stm = GetSaveStream();
SaveToStream(stm);
}

• #### When does an object become available for garbage collection?

As we saw last time, garbage collection is a method for simulating an infinite amount of memory in a finite amount of memory. This simulation is performed by reclaiming memory once the environment can determine that the program wouldn't notice that the memory was reclaimed. There are a variety of mechanism for determining this. In a basic tracing collector, this determination is made by taking the objects which the program has definite references to, then tracing references from those objects, contining transitively until all accessible objects are found. But what looks like a definite reference in your code may not actually be a definite reference in the virtual machine: Just because a variable is in scope doesn't mean that it is live.

class SomeClass {
...
string SomeMethod(string s, bool reformulate)
{
OtherClass o = new OtherClass(s);
string result = Frob(o);
if (reformulate) Reformulate();
return result;
}
}


For the purpose of this discussion, assume that the Frob method does not retain a reference to the object o passed as a parameter. When does the OtherClass object o become eligible for collection? A naïve answer would be that it becomes eligible for collection at the closing-brace of the SomeMethod method, since that's when the last reference (in the variable o) goes out of scope.

A less naïve answer would be that it become eligible for collection after the return value from Frob is stored to the local variable result, because that's the last line of code which uses the variable o.

A closer study would show that it becomes eligible for collection even sooner: Once the call to Frob returns, the variable o is no longer accessed, so the object could be collected even before the result of the call to Frob is stored into the local variable result. Optimizing compilers have known this for quite some time, and there is a strong likelihood that the variables o and result will occupy the same memory since their lifetimes do not overlap. Under such conditions, the code generation for the statement could very well be something like this:

  mov ecx, esi        ; load "this" pointer into ecx register
mov edx, [ebp-8]    ; load parameter ("o") into edx register
call SomeClass.Frob ; call method
mov [ebp-8], eax    ; re-use memory for "o" as "result"


But this closer study wasn't close enough. The OtherClass object o becomes eligible for collection even before the call to Frob returns! It is certainly eligible for collection at the point of the ret instruction which ends the Frob function: At that point, the Frob has finished using the object and won't access it again. Although somewhat of a technicality, it does illustrate that

An object in a block of code can become eligible for collection during execution of a function it called.

But let's dig deeper. Suppose that Frob looked like this:

string Frob(OtherClass o)
{
string result = FrobColor(o.GetEffectiveColor());
}


When does the OtherClass object become eligible for collection? We saw above that it is certainly eligible for collection as soon as FrobColor returns, because the Frob method doesn't use o any more after that point. But in fact it is eligible for collection when the call to GetEffectiveColor returns—even before the FrobColor method is called—because the Frob method doesn't use it once it gets the effective color. This illustrates that

A parameter to a method can become eligible for collection while the method is still executing.

But wait, is that the earliest the OtherClass object becomes eligible for collection? Suppose that the OtherClass.GetEffectiveColor method went like this:

Color GetEffectiveColor()
{
Color color = this.Color;
for (OtherClass o = this.Parent; o != null; o = o.Parent) {
color = BlendColors(color, o.Color);
}
return color;
}


Notice that the method doesn't access any members from its this pointer after the assignment o = this.Parent. As soon as the method retrieves the object's parent, the object isn't used any more.

  push ebp                    ; establish stack frame
mov ebp, esp
push esi
push edi
mov esi, ecx                ; enregister "this"
mov edi, [ecx].color        ; color = this.Color // inlined
jmp looptest
loop:
mov ecx, edi                ; load first parameter ("color")
mov edx, [esi].color        ; load second parameter ("o.Color")
call OtherClass.BlendColors ; BlendColors(color, o.Color)
mov edi, eax
looptest:
mov esi, [esi].parent       ; o = this.Parent (or o.Parent) // inlined
// "this" is now eligible for collection
test esi, esi               ; if o == null
jnz loop                    ; then rsetart loop
mov eax, edi                ; return value
pop edi
pop esi
pop ebp
ret


The last thing we ever do with the Other­Class object (presented in the Get­Effective­Color function by the keyword this) is fetch its parent. As soon that's done (indicated at the point of the comment, when the line is reached for the first time), the object becomes eligible for collection. This illustrates the perhaps-surprising result that

An object can become eligible for collection during execution of a method on that very object.

In other words, it is possible for a method to have its this object collected out from under it!

A crazy way of thinking of when an object becomes eligible for collection is that it happens once memory corruption in the object would have no effect on the program. (Or, if the object has a finalizer, that memory corruption would affect only the finalizer.) Because if memory corruption would have no effect, then that means you never use the values any more, which means that the memory may as well have been reclaimed out from under you for all you know.

A weird real-world analogy: The garbage collector can collect your diving board as soon as the diver touches it for the last time—even if the diver is still in the air!

A customer encountered the Call­GC­Keep­Alive­When­Using­Native­Resources FxCop rule and didn't understand how it was possible for the GC to collect an object while one of its methods was still running. "Isn't this part of the root set?"

Asking whether any particular value is or is not part of the root set is confusing the definition of garbage collection with its implementation. "Don't think of GC as tracing roots. Think of GC as removing things you aren't using any more."

The customer responded, "Yes, I understand conceptually that it becomes eligible for collection, but how does the garbage collector know that? How does it know that the this object is not used any more? Isn't that determined by tracing from the root set?"

Remember, the GC is in cahoots with the JIT. The JIT might decide to "help out" the GC by reusing the stack slot which previously held an object reference, leaving no reference on the stack and therefore no reference in the root set. Even if the reference is left on the stack, the JIT can leave some metadata behind that tells the GC, "If you see the instruction pointer in this range, then ignore the reference in this slot since it's a dead variable," similar to how in unmanaged code on non-x86 platforms, metadata is used to guide structured exception handling. (And besides, the this parameter isn't even passed on the stack in the first place.)

The customer replied, "Gotcha. Very cool."

Another customer asked, "Is there a way to get a reference to the instance being called for each frame in the stack? (Static methods excepted, of course.)" A different customer asked roughly the same question, but in a different context: "I want my method to walk up the stack, and if its caller is OtherClass.Foo, I want to get the this object for OtherClass.Foo so I can query additional properties from it." You now know enough to answer these questions yourself.

Bonus: A different customer asked, "The Stack­Frame object lets me get the method that is executing in the stack frame, but how do I get the parameters passed to that method?"

• #### When do I need to use GC.KeepAlive?

Finalization is the crazy wildcard in garbage collection. It operates "behind the GC", running after the GC has declared an object dead. Think about it: Finalizers run on objects that have no active references. How can this be a reference to an object that has no references? That's just crazy-talk!

Finalizers are a Ouija board, permitting dead objects to operate "from beyond the grave" and affect live objects. As a result, when finalizers are involved, there is a lot of creepy spooky juju going on, and you need to tread very carefully, or your soul will become cursed.

Let's step back and look at a different problem first. Consider this class which doesn't do anything interesting but works well enough for demonstration purposes:

class Sample1 {
public Sample1(string file) : sr(new StreamReader(file)) { }
public void Close() { sr.Close(); }
public string NextLine() { return sr.ReadLine(); }
}


What happens if one thread calls Sample1.NextLine() and another thread calls Sample1.Close()? If the NextLine() call wins the race, then you have a stream closed while it is in the middle of its ReadLine method. Probably not good. If the Close() call wins the race, then when the NextLine() call is made, you end up reading from a closed stream. Definitely not good. Finally, if the NextLine() call runs to completion before the Close(), then the line is successfully read before the stream is closed.

Having this race condition is clearly an unwanted state of affairs since the result is unpredictable.

Now let's change the Close() method to a finalizer.

class Sample2 {
public Sample2(string file) : sr(new StreamReader(file)) { }
~Sample2() { sr.Close(); }
public string NextLine() { return sr.ReadLine(); }
}


Remember that we learned that an object becomes eligible for garbage collection when there are no active references to it, and that it can happen even while a method on the object is still active. Consider this function:

string FirstLine(string fileName) {
Sample2 s = new Sample2(fileName);
return s.NextLine();
}


We learned that the Sample2 object becomes eligible for collection during the execution of NextLine(). Suppose that the garbage collector runs and collects the object while NextLine is still running. This could happen if ReadLine takes a long time, say, because the hard drive needs to spin up or there is a network hiccup; or it could happen just because it's not your lucky day and the garbage collector ran at just the wrong moment. Since this object has a finalizer, the finalizer runs before the memory is discarded, and the finalizer closes the StreamReader.

Boom, we just hit the race condition we considered when we looked at Sample1: The stream was closed while it was being read from. The garbage collector is a rogue thread that closes the stream at a bad time. The problem occurs because the garbage collector doesn't know that the finalizer is going to make changes to other objects.

Classically speaking, there are three conditions which in combination lead to this problem:

1. Containment: An entity a retains a reference to another entity b.
2. Incomplete encapsulation: The entity b is visible to an entity outside a.
3. Propagation of destructive effect: Some operation performed on entity a has an effect on entity b which alters its proper usage (usually by rendering it useless).

The first condition (containment) is something you do without a second's thought. If you look at any class, there's a very high chance that it has, among its fields, a reference to another object.

The second condition (incomplete encapsulation) is also a common pattern. In particular, if b is an object with methods, it will be visible to itself.

The third condition (propagation of destructive effect) is the tricky one. If an operation on entity a has a damaging effect on entity b, the code must be careful not to damage it while it's still being used. This is something you usually take care of explicitly, since you're the one who wrote the code that calls the destructive method.

Unless the destructive method is a finalizer.

If the destructive method is a finalizer, then you do not have complete control over when it will run. And it is one of the fundamental laws of the universe that events will occur at the worst possible time.

Enter GC.KeepAlive(). The purpose of GC.KeepAlive() is to force the garbage collector to treat the object as still live, thereby preventing it from being collected, and thereby preventing the finalizer from running prematurely.

(Here's the money sentence.) You need to use GC.KeepAlive when the finalizer for an object has a destructive effect on a contained object.

The problem is that it's not always clear which objects have finalizers which have destructive effect on a contained object. There are some cases where you can suspect this is happening due to the nature of the object itself. For example, if the object manages something external to the CLR, then its finalizer will probably destroy the external object. But there can be other cases where the need for GC.KeepAlive is not obvious.

A much cleaner solution than using GC.KeepAlive is to use the IDisposable interface, formalized by the using keyword. Everybody knows that the using keyword ensures that the object being used is disposed at the end of the block. But it's also the case (and it is this behavior that is important today) that the using keyword also keeps the object alive until the end of the block. (Why? Because the object needs to be alive so that we can call Dispose on it!)

This is one of the reasons I don't like finalizers. Since they operate underneath the GC, they undermine many principles of garbage collected systems. (See also resurrection.) As we saw earlier, a correctly-written program cannot rely on side effects of a finalizer, so in theory all finalizers could be nop'd out without affecting correctness.

The garbage collector purist in me also doesn't like finalizers because they prevent the running time of a garbage collector to be proportional to the amount of live data, like say in a classic two-space collector. (There is also a small constant associated with the amount of dead data, which means that the overall complexity is proportional to the amount of total data.)

If I ruled the world, I would decree that the only thing you can do in a finalizer is perform some tests to ensure that all the associated external resources have already been explicitly released, and if not, raise a fatal exception: System.Exception.Resource­Leak.

• #### How do I get the reference count of a CLR object?

A customer asked the rather enigmatic question (with no context):

Is there a way to get the reference count of an object in .Net?

Thanks,
Bob Smith
Senior Developer
Contoso

The CLR does not maintain reference counts, so there is no reference count to "get". The garbage collector only cares about whether an object has zero references or at least one reference. It doesn't care if there is one, two, twelve, or five hundred—from the point of view of the garbage collector, one is as good as five hundred.

The customer replied,

I am aware of that, yet the mechanism is somehow implemented by the GC...

What I want to know is whether at a certain point there is more then one variable pointing to the same object.

As already noted, the GC does not implement the "count the number of references to this object" algorithm. It only implements the "Is it definitely safe to reclaim the memory for his object?" algorithm. A null garbage collector always answers "No." A tracing collector looks for references, but it only cares whether it found one, not how many it found.

The discussion of "variables pointing to the same objects" is somewhat confused, because you can have references to an object from things other than variables. Parameters to a method contain references, the implicit this is also a reference, and partially-evaluated expressions also contain references. (During execution of the line string s = o.ToString();, at the point immediately after o.ToString() returns and before the result is assigned to s, the string has an active reference but it isn't stored in any variable.) And as we saw earlier, merely storing a reference in a variable doesn't prevent the object from being collected.

It's clear that this person solved half of his problem, and just needs help with the other half, the half that doesn't make any sense. (I like how he immediately weakened his request from "I want the exact reference count" to "I want to know if it is greater than one." Because as we all know, the best way to solve a problem is to reduce it to an even harder problem.)

Another person used some psychic powers to figure out what the real problem is:

If I am reading properly into what you mean, you may want to check out the Weak­Reference class. This lets you determine whether an object has been collected. Note that you don't get access to a reference count; it's a zero/nonzero thing. If the Weak­Reference is empty, it means the object has been collected. You don't get a chance to act upon it (as you would if you were the last one holding a reference to it).

The customer explained that he tried Weak­Reference, but it didn't work. (By withholding this information, the customer made the mistake of not saying what he already tried and why it didn't work.)

Well this is exactly the problem: I instantiate an object and then create a Weak­Reference to it (global variable).

Then at some point the object is released (set to null, disposed, erased from the face of the earth, you name it) yet if I check the Is­Alive property it still returns true.

Only if I explicitly call to GC.Collect(0) or greater before the check it is disposed.

The customer still hasn't let go of the concept of reference counting, since he says that the object is "released". In a garbage-collected system, object are not released; rather, you simply stop referencing them. And disposing of an object still maintains a reference; disposing just invokes the IDisposable.Dispose method.

FileStream fs = new FileStream(fileName);
using (fs) {
...
}


At the end of this code fragment, the File­Stream has been disposed, but there is still a reference to it in the fs variable. Mind you, that reference isn't very useful, since there isn't much you can do with a disposed object, Even if you rewrite the fragment as

using (FileStream fs = new FileStream(fileName)) {
...
}


the variable fs still exists after the close-brace; it simply has gone out of scope (i.e., you can't access it any more). Scope is not the same as lifetime. Of course, the optimizer can step in and make the object eligible for collection once the value becomes inaccessible, but there is no requirement that this optimization be done.

The fact that the Is­Alive property says true even after all known references have been destroyed is also no surprise. The environment does not check whether an object's last reference has been made inaccessible every time a reference changes. One of the major performance benefits of garbage collected systems comes from the de-amortization of object lifetime determination. Instead of maintaining lifetime information about an object continuously (spending a penny each time a reference is created or destroyed), it saves up those pennies and splurges on a few dollars every so often. The calculated risk (which usually pays off) is that the rate of penny-saving makes up for the occasional splurges.

It does mean that between the splurges, the garbage collector does not know whether an object has outstanding references or not. It doesn't find out until it does a collection.

The null garbage collector takes this approach to an extreme by simply hoarding pennies and never spending them. It saves a lot of money but consumes a lot of memory. The other extreme (common in unmanaged environments) is to spend the pennies as soon as possible. It spends a lot of money but reduces memory usage to the absolute minimum. The designers of a garbage collector work to find the right balance between these two extremes, saving money overall while still keeping memory usage at a reasonable level.

The customer appears to have misinterpreted what the Is­Alive property means. The property doesn't say whether there are any references to the object. It says whether the object has been garbage collected. Since the garbage collector can run at any time, there is nothing meaningful you can conclude if Is­Alive returns true, since it can transition from alive to dead while you're talking about it. On the other hand, once it's dead, it stays dead; it is valid to take action when Is­Alive is false. (Note that there are two types of Weak­Reference; the difference is when they issue the death certificate.)

The name Is­Alive for the property could be viewed as misleading if you just look at the property name without reading the accompanying documentation. Perhaps a more accurate (but much clumsier) name would have been Has­Not­Been­Collected. The theory is, presumably, that if you're using an advanced class like Weak­Reference, which works "at the GC level", you need to understand the GC.

The behavior the customer is seeing is correct. The odds that the garbage collector has run between annihilating the last live reference and checking the Is­Alive property is pretty low, so when you ask whether the object has been collected, the answer will be No. Of course, forcing a collection will cause the garbage collector to run, and that's what does the collection and sets Is­Alive to false. Mind you, forcing the collection to take place messes up the careful penny-pinching the garbage collector has been performing. You forced it to pay for a collection before it had finished saving up for it, putting the garbage collector in debt. (Is there a garbage collector debt collector?) And the effect of a garbage collector going into debt is that your program runs slower than it would have if you had let the collector spend its money on its own terms.

Note also that forcing a generation-zero collection does not guarantee that the object in question will be collected: It may have been promoted into a higher generation. (Generational garbage collection takes advantage of typical real-world object lifetime profiles by spending only fifty cents on a partial collection rather than a whole dollar on a full collection. As a rough guide, the cost of a collection is proportional to the number of live object scanned, so the most efficient collections are those which find mostly dead objects.) Forcing an early generation-zero collection messes up the careful balance between cheap-but-partial collections and expensive-and-thorough collections, causing objects to get promoted into higher generations before they really deserve it.

Okay, that was a long discussion of a short email thread. Maybe tomorrow I'll do a better job of keeping things short.

Bonus chatter: In addition to the Weak­Reference class, there is also the GC­Handle structure.

Bonus reading: Maoni's WebLog goes into lots of detail on the internals of the CLR garbage collector. Doug Stewart created this handy index.

• #### How can I find all objects of a particular type?

More than one customer has asked a question like this:

I'm looking for a way to search for all instances of a particular type at runtime. My goal is to invoke a particular method on each of those instances. Note that I did not create these object myself or have any other access to them. Is this possible?

Imagine what the world would be like if it were possible.

For starters, just imagine the fun you could have if you could call typeof(Secure­String).Get­Instances(). Vegas road trip!

More generally, it breaks the semantics of App­Domain boundaries, since grabbing all instances of a type lets you get objects from another App­Domain, which fundamentally violates the point of App­Domains. (Okay, you could repair this by saying that the Get­Instances method only returns objects from the current App­Domain.)

This imaginary Get­Instances method might return objects which are awaiting finalization, which violates one of the fundamental assumptions of a finalizer, namely that there are no references to the object: If there were, then it wouldn't be finalized! (Okay, you could repair this by saying that the Get­Instances method does not return objects which are awaiting finalization.)

On top of that, you break the syncRoot pattern.

class Sample {
private object syncRoot = new object();
public void Method() {
lock(syncRoot) { ... };
}
}

If it were possible to get all objects of a particular class, then anybody could just reach in and grab your private sync­Root and call Monitor.Enter() on it. Congratuations, the private synchronization object you created is now a public one that anybody can screw with, defeating the whole purpose of having a private syncRoot. You can no longer reason about your syncRoot because you are no longer in full control of it. (Yes, this can already be done with reflection, but at least when reflecting, you know that you're grabbing somebody's private field called sync­Root, so you already recognize that you're doing something dubious. Whereas with Get­Instances, you don't know what each of the returned objects is being used for. Heck, you don't even know if it's being used! It might just be garbage lying around waiting to be collected.)

More generally, code is often written on the expectation that an object that you never give out a reference to is not accessible to others. Consider the following code fragment:

using (StreamWriter sr = new StreamWriter(fileName)) {
sr.WriteLine("Hello");
}


If it were possible to get all objects of a particular class, you may find that your customers report that they are getting an Object­Disposed­Exception on the call to Write­Line. How is that possible? The disposal doesn't happen until the close-brace, right? Is there a bug in the CLR where it's disposing an object too soon?

Nope, what happened is that some other thread did exactly what the customer was asking for a way to do: It grabbed all existing Stream­Writer instances and invoked Stream­Writer.Close on them. It did this immediately after you constructed the Stream­Writer and before you did your sr.Write­Line(). Result: When your sr.Write­Line() executes, it finds that the stream was already closed, and therefore the write fails.

More generally, consider the graffiti you could inject into all output files by doing

foreach (StreamWriter sr in typeof(StreamWriter).GetInstances()) {
sr.Write("Kilroy was here!");
}


or even crazier

foreach (StringBuilder rb in typeof(StringBuilder).GetInstances()) {
sb.Insert(0, "DROP TABLE users; --");
}


Now no String­Builder is safe—the contents of any String­Builder can be corrupted at any time!

If you could obtain all instances of a type, the fundamental logic behind computer programming breaks down. It effectively becomes impossible to reason about code because anything could happen to your objects at any time.

If you need to be able to get all instances of a class, you need to add that functionality to the class itself. (GC­Handle or Weak­Reference will come in handy here.) Of course, if you do this, then you clearly opted into the "anything can happen to your object at any time outside your control" model and presumably your code operates accordingly. You made your bed; now you get to lie in it.

(And I haven't even touched on thread safety.)

Bonus reading: Questionable value of SyncRoot on Collections.

• #### Windows 95: It sucks less

Today marks the 15th anniversary of the public release of Windows 95.

During the development of Windows 95, one of the team members attended a Mac conference. And not as a secret agent, either. He proudly wore a Windows 95 team T-shirt as he strolled among the booths.

The rest of us back at the mother ship wished him well and started discussing how we could get access to his dental records so we could identify his remains when they were sent back to us from the conference.

When he returned, we didn't kill a calf in his honor, but we did marvel at his survival skills and asked him how it went.

I got a lot of funny looks. And one guy, upon confirming that I really did work on the Windows 95 project, said to me, "I have to commend you guys on Windows 95 so far. It sucks less."

That backwards compliment tickled the team's funny bone, and it quickly became the unofficial team motto: Windows 95: It sucks less.

• #### What young children do when they hear a foreign language

My young nieces live in a Chinese-speaking household, which is great for them because it means that when they grow up, they will be fluent in two languages. But it makes things a bit tricky at the beginning.

The niece who is the subject of this story had just turned two at the time this story takes place, so her language skills even in Chinese are pretty rudimentary. Her language skills in English are restricted to a collection of set phrases like Excuse me!, I'm sorry!, What'you doing?, I want ice cream!, and any catch phrase from the character Dora the Explorer.

(I'm also fairly sure she doesn't know what What'you doing? actually means. She'll come into a room and say, What'you doing? and then appear completely uninterested in the answer. I think she believes it to be a form of greeting and not an actual question.)

She also loves to answer the phone, and this usually isn't a problem since most callers are relatives who can speak Chinese. But occasionally, it'll be somebody who speaks only English. (In general, these are just telemarketers, since most members of the household use their mobile phones as their main number.)

Sometimes she'll run to the phone, pick it up, say "喂" (Hello), listen for a few seconds, and then just hang up.

— Who was that on the phone? we'll ask.

It's hard to explain why this is a funny answer.

The word 人 means man, person, so her response was a casual "A person." The offhand way she says it expresses her attitude that "The purpose of the telephone is to amuse me, but this was just some guy who provided no entertainment at all."

The 人 phase lasted for only a month or so. In the next phase, she still picked up the phone and hung up when there was somebody speaking English on the other end, but when we asked her who it was, she gave a more detailed reply:

"有人說ＡＢＣ", which translates roughly as "It's some guy speaking A-B-C." ("A-B-C" being her word for the English language.)

• #### What was that story about the WinHelp pen-writing-in-book animation?

The first time you open a WinHelp file, you get this pen-writing-in-book animation while WinHelp does um something which it passes off as preparing Help file for first use or something similarly vague.

I remember a conversation about that animation. The Windows shell team suggested to the author of WinHelp that the program use the shell common animation control to display that animation. After all, it's a short animation and it met the requirements for the animation common control. But the author of WinHelp rejected the notion.

(Pre-emptive "I can't believe I had to write this": This conversation has been exaggerated for effect.)

"Your animation control is so huge and bloated. I can do it much smaller and faster myself. The RLE animation format generates frames by re-rendering the pixels that have changed, which means that at each frame of the animation, a new pen image would be recorded in the AVI file. The pen cycles through three different orientations at each location, there are ten locations on each row, and there are four rows. If I used an RLE animation, that'd be 3 × 10 × 4 = 120 copies of the pen bitmap. Instead, I have just three pen bitmaps, and I manually draw them at the appropriate location for each frame. Something like this:

// NOTE: For simplicity, I'm ignoring the "turn the page" animation
void DrawFrame(int frame)
{
// Calculate our position in the animation
int penframe = frame % 3; // 3 pen images per location
int column = (frame / 3) % 10; // 10 columns per row
int row = (frame / 30) % 4; // 4 rows
int i;
POINT pt;

// Draw the "text" that the pen "wrote" in earlier rows
for (i = 0; i < row; i++) {
DrawTextScribble(i, 0, 9);
}

// Draw the partially-completed row that the pen is on now
DrawTextScribble(row, 0, column);

// Position the pen image so the pen tip hits the "draw" point
GetTextScribblePoint(column, row, &pt);
DrawPenBitmap(penBitmaps[penframe], pt.x - 1, pt.y - 5);
}


"See? In just a few lines of code, I have a complete animation. All I needed was the three pen images and a background bitmap showing a book opened to a blank page. This is way more efficient both in terms of memory and execution time than your stupid animation common control. You shell guys could learn a thing or two about programming."

"Okay, fine, don't need to get all defensive about it. We were just making a suggestion, that's all."

Time passes, and Windows 95 is sent off for translation into the however many languages it is localized for. A message comes in from some of the localization teams. It seems that some locales need to change the animation. For example, the Arabic version of Windows needs the pen to write on the left-hand pages, the pen motion should be right to left, and the pages need to flip from left to right. Perhaps the Japanese translators are okay with the pen motion, but they want the pages to flip from left to right.

The localization team contacted the WinHelp author. "We're trying to change the animation, but we can't find the AVI file in the resources. Can you advise us on how we should localize the animation?"

Unfortunately, the WinHelp author had to tell the localization team that the direction of pen motion, and the locations of the ink marks are hard-coded into the program. Since the product had already passed code lockdown, there was nothing that could be done. WinHelp shipped with a pen that moved in the wrong direction in some locales.

Moral of the story: There's more to software development than programming for performance. Today we learned about localizability.