[gclist] Finalization and the insane postman bug.
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:14:39 -0400 (EDT)
I just read through the whole finalization thread several times.
Here's my attempt at a summary, and four questions.
A finalizer is a piece of user-supplied code that the garbage
collector runs when an object becomes garbage --- *with a reference to
the garbage object*.
Finalizers are useful for the following reason:
The problem is that if the language is missing finalization, sooner or
later you will need some other means to deallocate a non-memory
resource embedded deep in a data structure. But there is no way to
determine when to deallocate that resource without redoing all of the
work already being done by the garbage collector. A 100,000 line
program probably needs finalization in only one or two places; but
doing without finalization will involve essentially reqriting the
whole program for manual memory management, with all of the problems
I find it far easier to read and verify correctness of a program that
includes one or two finalizer uses, than to read one that is manually
reference counted, because the builtin GC didn't quite have the
-- Hans-J. Boehm, on gclist around 2001-10-08, in message-id
But there are some problems with finalizers.
1. Depending on the collector being used, they can retain those
resources for arbitrary periods of time after they're no longer being
used. ("Finalization is not prompt.")
2. It's hard to figure out what context to run finalizers in:
- running finalizers in a user thread has the potential to
indefinitely block that user thread; the halting problem is still
hard, although there are approaches that involve code carrying proof
that it will halt. Running them in a user thread also has a
deadlock problem if your program uses locks: if the finalizer uses a
lock that the user code higher up the stack holds, the thread will
- whether running finalizers in a user thread or in a special thread,
there is the question of what to do with raised exceptions; allowing
them to unwind the stack will probably unwind lots of things not at
all related to the finalizer's context, but just discarding them is
probably bad, too.
Rick Hudson writes, of finalizer threads:
This in turn introduces the concept of a special case "finalization
thread" that is not like other threads, application code can't put a
priority on it or control it or even kill it yet it can run
3. since finalizers can resurrect dead objects, they make the
collector's job harder. The collector must wait until the finalizer
is finished before it can actually recycle objects the finalizer might
resurrect or run those objects' finalizers. Also, object resurrection
is, in the abstract, a semantic difficulty; but in practice it doesn't
seem to cause many problems. (Except in early versions of Java, where
you could use object resurrection to make immortal objects.)
4. It's hard to figure out what to do with objects that are still
alive at program termination. If you run their finalizers, then those
finalizers have to deal with the fact that some objects they have
access to may already have been finalized, which can never happen
during normal program execution. Conversely, if you don't run their
finalizers, the resources you were depending on the finalizers to
release might not get released. ("Finalizers are not sure.")
5. Whatever subsystem is responsible for allocating the resource
you're using finalizers to release should know that you're doing this
--- because when someone tries to allocate, say, another file
descriptor, and there aren't any free, it should be smart enough to
invoke a garbage collection or two and try again. Not doing things
this way means that your garbage collector not being prompt or sure
enough will break your program; for example, adding more memory might
cause a previously working program to run out of file descriptors. [I
didn't see much discussion of this problem, so perhaps it doesn't come
up much in real life?]
6. [Something or other about ordering? is this the thing in section 3
about when to finalize objects that are referenced from other
Some people like "death notices" instead of finalizers. A "death
notice" is a message placed by the collector when it frees an object,
which a live object can later read and take action on.
java.lang.ref.PhantomReference is one way of implementing this: it's a
lot like a weak reference (i.e. it doesn't keep the object from being
collected and you get notified when the object has been collected)
except that you can't dereference it, ever, even when the object
Death notices share problems 1 and 4 with finalizers, but avoid
problems 2 and 3. They make problem 5 worse, because the file
descriptor allocator also needs to invoke the application's
file-descriptor-death-notice-queue-reading code --- which also brings
back problem 2 with a vengeance --- or fail. (Unless that code is
runnable in another thread, in which case the file descriptor
allocator just needs to wait until it's done.)
Death notices can be implemented on top of finalizers. Finalizers
cannot be implemented on top of death notices, because a finalizer has
access to the dead object, and a death notice does not.
In the halfway ground, there are near-death notices, where you have an
'owner' object with a reference to the victim object, and the GC
notifies the 'owner' object when that reference becomes the only
reference to the victim object. The 'owner' object can then release
resources associated with the victim object before it releases its own
reference, causing that object to be finally collected.
Near-death notices share problems 1, 3, and 4 with finalizers, and
partly share problem 2. They make it easier because the mutator can
wait until it doesn't hold any locks to handle near-death notices,
even without being multithreaded. Also, they remove the semantic
contradictions surrounding normal finalizers, such as "resurrection".
They make problem 5 worse in the same way that death notices do.
Near-death notices can be implemented on top of finalizers, if you
aren't picky about the owner object having a reference to the dying
object until after it's dying, and finalizers can be implemented on
top of near-death notices, if you aren't picky about the finalizer
Does that summarize all the substantive points of the discussion about
finalizers? Is any of it controvertible?
There was some other discussion that wasn't really about finalizers on
the finalizers thread:
- separating destruction from deallocation in C++ and why it's difficult
- the problem with finalizers being methods of objects in Java (so
unrelated code has to use death notices to get notification of the
object dying, and there's at most one finalizer per object)
- the fact that some people try to use finalizers for C++-style
"resource acquisition is initialization", which doesn't work in
general because finalizers aren't prompt or sure, unless your
collector is smart enough to promptly collect objects of definite
So, my comments.
With regard to finalizers not being sure being a problem, if you have
resources that don't get freed when your program exits, mightn't that
cause problems in other cases, too, like a machine crash?
Do finalizers have any advantages over near-death notices, other than
problem 5 not being as bad? It seems that near-death notices have two
advantages over finalizers: they give us more sensible terminology for
discussing cleanup, and they work in single-threaded applications.
Do near-death notices have any advantages over death notices? It
seems that death notices would make the collector's job easier. The
only thing I can think of is that it might simplify your design to
have the resource to be freed referenced only in the object that owns
it, rather than in both that object and its nanny object. The only
suggestion I've seen on the list is that the mutator might want to
bring in faith healers or steal the wedding ring of the garbage
object, and I can't imagine what these actions would be analogous to
in my programs.
Is it more difficult to verify code that figures out when to free
resources by hand than to prove to yourself that the resources do, in
fact, eventually get freed? If I understand correctly, Hans-J. Boehm
asserts that it is in his quote above, but I don't understand why.