Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

GC - Possible to indefinitely prevent collection of generation-1 objects by calling gc.collect(0) often #122567

Open
ojw28 opened this issue Aug 1, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
performance Performance or resource usage type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error

Comments

@ojw28
Copy link

ojw28 commented Aug 1, 2024

Bug report

Bug description:

The example below will die from memory exhaustion, despite nearly all objects being eligible for collection and despite garbage collection not being disabled. See inline comments for an explanation of what I think is happening:

import gc
from typing import Any

class Temp:
  def __init__(self):
    # Cyclic reference to prevent deletion by ref count dropping to 0.
    self._x = self
    # Allocate a bunch of memory so that the process will die if
    # collection doesn't happen.
    self.memory = bytearray(1024*1024*512)

# Set some low thresholds so that collection should occur often.
gc.set_threshold(100, 3, 3)

while True:
  ref = Temp()
  # Promote the new Temp() object to generation-1. I think this is also resetting
  # the GCs view of how many objects were allocated at the "last collection". If
  # that's true, it will effectively stop the GC from ever being invoked
  # automatically, even though we're accumulating more and more objects,
  # because `threshold0` will never be exceeded.
  gc.collect(0)
  del ref
  # Temp() is now in generation-1 and eligible for collection, but gc.collect(1)
  # is never triggered, because there are no automatically invoked GCs at all.
  # Here we log the number of generation-1 objects, which continues to increase
  # until the process dies.
  print("Number of generation 1 objects: ", len(gc.get_objects(generation=1)))

Commenting out only the gc.collect(0) allows the Temp objects to be collected, and the process to run indefinitely. The fact that removing an explicit GC actually enables more GC to happen seems broken.

If what I think is happening is what's happening, then perhaps manually invoked GCs should not reset the GC's view on how many objects were allocated at the "last collection", since that would be what's effectively disabling the automatically triggered GCs (and hence the GCs at higher generations) from running.

CPython versions tested on:

3.11

Operating systems tested on:

macOS

@ojw28 ojw28 added the type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error label Aug 1, 2024
@mdboom mdboom added the performance Performance or resource usage label Aug 1, 2024
@mdboom
Copy link
Contributor

mdboom commented Aug 1, 2024

Cc: @markshannon

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
performance Performance or resource usage type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants