Thread safe memory pool

My application currently is highly performance critical and is requests 3-5 million objects per frame. Initially, to get the ball rolling, I new'd everything and got the application to work and test my algorithms. The application is multi-threaded.

Once I was happy with the performance, I started to create a memory manager for my objects. The obvious reason is memory fragmentation and wastage. The application could not continue for more than a few frames before crashing due to memory fragmentation. I have checked for memory leaks and know the application is leak free.

So I started creating a simple memory manager using TBB's concurrent_queue. The queue stores a maximum set of elements the application is allowed to use. The class requiring new elements pops elements from the queue. The try_pop method is, according to Intel's documentation, lock-free. This worked quite well as far as memory consumption goes (although there is still memory fragmentation, but not nearly as much as before). The problem I am facing now is that the application's performance has slowed down approximately 4 times according to my own simple profiler (I do not have access to commercial profilers or know of any that will work on a real-time application... any recommendation would be appreciated).

My question is, is there a thread-safe memory pool that is scalable. A must-have feature of the pool is fast recycling of elements and making them available. If there is none, any tips/tricks performance wise?

EDIT: I thought I would explain the problem a bit more. I could easily initial开发者_如何学Cize n number of arrays where n is the number of threads and start using the objects from the arrays per thread. This will work perfectly for some cases. In my case, I am recycling the elements as well (potentially every frame) and they could be recycled at any point in the array; i.e. it may be from elementArray[0] or elementArray[10] or elementArray[1000] part of the array. Now I will have a fragmented array of elements consisting of elements that are ready to be used and elements that are in-use :(

---

As said in comments, don't get a thread-safe memory allocator, allocate memory per-thread.

As you implied in your update, you need to manage free/in-use effectively. That is a pretty straightforward problem, given a constant type and no concurrency.

For example (off the top of my head, untested):

template<typename T>
class ThreadStorage
{
    std::vector<T> m_objs;
    std::vector<size_t> m_avail;

public:
    explicit ThreadStorage(size_t count) : m_objs(count, T()) {
        m_avail.reserve(count);
        for (size_t i = 0; i < count; ++i) m_avail.push_back(i);
    }

    T* alloc() {
        T* retval = &m_objs[0] + m_avail.back();
        m_avail.pop_back();
        return retval;
    }

    void free(T* p) {
        *p = T(); // Assuming this is enough destruction.
        m_avail.push_back(p - &m_objs[0]);
    }
};

Then, for each thread, have a ThreadStorage instance, and call alloc() and free() as required.

You can add smart pointers to manage calling free() for you, and you can optimise constructor/destructor calling if that's expensive.

You can also look at boost::pool.

Update:

The new requirement for keeping track of things that have been used so that they can be processed in a second pass seems a bit unclear to me. I think you mean that when the primary processing is finished on an object, you need to not release it, but keep a reference to it for second stage processing. Some objects you will just be released back to the pool and not used for second stage processing.

I assume you want to do this in the same thread.

As a first pass, you could add a method like this to ThreadStorage, and call it when you want to do processing on all unreleased instances of T. No extra book keeping required.

void do_processing(boost::function<void (T* p)> const& f) {
    std::sort(m_avail.begin(), m_avail.end());

    size_t o = 0;
    for (size_t i = 0; i != m_avail.size(); ++i) {
        if (o < m_avail[i]) {
            do {
                f(&m_objs[o]);
            } while (++o < m_avail[i]);
            ++o;
        } else of (o == m_avail[i])
            ++o;
    }

    for (; o < m_objs.size(); ++o) f(&m_objs[o]);
}

Assumes no other thread is using the ThreadStorage instance, which is reasonable because it is thread-local by design. Again, off the top of my head, untested.

---

Google's TCMalloc,

TCMalloc assigns each thread a thread-local cache. Small allocations are satisfied from the thread-local cache. Objects are moved from central data structures into a thread-local cache as needed, and periodic garbage collections are used to migrate memory back from a thread-local cache into the central data structures.

Performance:

TCMalloc is faster than the glibc 2.3 malloc... ptmalloc2 takes approximately 300 nanoseconds to execute a malloc/free pair on a 2.8 GHz P4 (for small objects). The TCMalloc implementation takes approximately 50 nanoseconds for the same operation pair...

---

You may want to have a look at jemalloc.