626人阅读 评论(0) 收藏 举报

    昨天发现了一个可以引起IE的JScript解析引擎发生Memory Leak的bug,及其引起该bug的代码。后来问题男Laser.NET两位网友给出了很多很有意义的讨论,当然ccBoy网友也给了不少建议,不过ccBoy却更关心innerHTML和appendChild的效率,对ML问题一带而过,好像觉得那根本不是什么大不了得问题

    结果我在google里搜了搜,中文论坛和网站里关于JScript GC的文章,几乎清一色全都是从MSDN上转来的一个半截文章,并且转来转去连个翻译版都没有。中文名叫"JS中关于对内存的释放问题[待续]",原文来自MSDN中:"WEB Q&A"的第三个问题。

    关于JScript脚本引擎的GC的原理和问题,下面这篇文章给予了详细的解释"How Do The Script Garbage Collectors Work?"

    JScript and VBScript both are automatic storage languages.  Unlike, say, C++, the script developer does not have to worry about explicitly allocating and freeing each chunk of memory used by the program.  The internal device in the engine which takes care of this task for the developer is called the garbage collector. 

    Interestingly enough though, JScript and VBScript have completely different garbage collectors.  Occasionally people ask me how the garbage collectors work and what the differences are.

    JScript uses a nongenerational mark-and-sweep garbage collector.  It works like this:

  • Every variable which is "in scope" is called a "scavenger".  A scavenger may refer to a number, an object, a string, whatever.  We maintain a list of scavengers -- variables are moved on to the scav list when they come into scope and off the scav list when they go out of scope.
  • Every now and then the garbage collector runs.   First it puts a "mark" on every object, variable, string, etc – all the memory tracked by the GC.  (JScript uses the VARIANT data structure internally and there are plenty of extra unused bits in that structure, so we just set one of them.)
  • Second, it clears the mark on the scavengers and the transitive closure of scavenger references.  So if a scavenger object references a nonscavenger object then we clear the bits on the nonscavenger, and on everything that it refers to.  (I am using the word "closure" in a different sense than in my earlier post.)
  • At this point we know that all the memory still marked is allocated memory which cannot be reached by any path from any in-scope variable.  All of those objects are instructed to tear themselves down, which destroys any circular references.

    Actually it is a little more complex than that, as we must worry about details like "what if freeing an item causes a message loop to run, which handles an event, which calls back into the script, which runs code, which triggers another garbage collection?"  But those are just implementation details. (Incidentally, every JScript engine running on the same thread shares a GC, which complicates the story even further...)

    You'll note that I hand-waved a bit there when I said "every now and then..."  Actually what we do is keep track of the number of strings, objects and array slots allocated.  We check the current tallies at the beginning of each statement, and when the numbers exceed certain thresholds we trigger a collection.

    The benefits of this approach are numerous, but the principle benefit is that circular references are not leaked unless the circular reference involves an object not owned by JScript. 

    However, there are some down sides as well.  Performance is potentially not good on large-working-set applications -- if you have an app where there are lots of long-term things in memory and lots of short-term objects being created and destroyed then the GC will run often and will have to walk the same network of long-term objects over and over again.  That's not fast.

    The opposite problem is that perhaps a GC will not run when you want one to.  If you say "blah = null" then the memory owned by blah will not be released until the GC releases it. If blah is the sole remaining reference to a huge array or network of objects, you might want it to go away as soon as possible. Now, you can force the JScript garbage collector to run with the CollectGarbage() method, but I don't recommend it.  The whole point of JScript having a GC is that you don't need to worry about object lifetime.  If you do worry about it then you're probably using the wrong tool for the job! 

    VBScript on the other hand, has a much simpler stack-based garbage collector.  Scavengers are added to a stack when they come into scope, removed when they go out of scope, and any time an object is discarded it is immediately freed. 

    You might wonder why we didn't put a mark-and-sweep GC into VBScript.  There are two reasons.  First, VBScript did not have classes until version 5, but JScript had objects from day one; VBScript did not need a complex GC because there was no way to get circular references in the first place!  Second, VBScript is supposed to be like VB6 where possible, and VB6 does not have a mark-n-sweep collector either.

    The VBScript approach pretty much has the opposite pros and cons.  It is fast, simple and predictable, but circular references of VBScript objects are not broken until the engine itself is shut down.

    The CLR GC is also mark-n-sweep but it is generational – the more collections an object survives, the less often it is checked for life.  This dramatically improves performance for large-working-set applications. Of course, the CLR GC was designed for industrial-grade applications, the JScript GC was designed for simple little web pages.

    What happens when you have a web page, ASP page or WSH script with both VBScript and JScript?  JScript and VBScript know nothing about each others garbage collection semantics.  A VBScript program which gets a reference to a JScript object just sees another COM object.  The same for a VBScript object passed to JScript.  A circular reference between VBScript and JScript objects would not be broken and the memory would leak (until the engines were shut down).  A noncircular reference will be freed when the object in question goes out of scope in both language (and the JS GC runs.) 

    上文中红色的代码解释了为什么我的昨天文章里的那个双向引用会产生Memory Leak的问题,因为语句:span.Object = this;和this.m_Element = span;中的span来自DHMTL对象树,而this(TestObject类的一个实例)来自JScript脚本引擎,它俩在不同的scope里,从而不能被JScript引擎中的GC机制自动回收。在昨天的文章中,问题男说道过JS的GC可能会对circular reference的情况晕菜,对于昨天我那个示例来说这个说法是正确的。不过从上文中看来并不是十分的严密,JS并不会对普通的circular reference晕菜的,只是对垮scope的reference会使其GC实效。


    上文的回复也挺有意思的,其中有来自developer-x.com的Tim Scarfe的抱怨,和他对Erik Arvidsson的评述,让人对Erik Arvidsson再次心生敬意。谁是Erik?! 看看这个

    BTW: KB中也还说道过一个JScript的GC bug,叫:JScript Garbage Collector Is in Inconsistent State When Many Cross-Thread Calls Are Made。不过这个bug主要影响IE5.0、IE5.01及Windows Script Engine 5.5,并且已经fixed了。


* 以上用户言论只代表其个人观点,不代表CSDN网站的观点或立场
    • 访问:121370次
    • 积分:2741
    • 等级:
    • 排名:第12676名
    • 原创:148篇
    • 转载:0篇
    • 译文:0篇
    • 评论:13条