本文共 5160 字，大约阅读时间需要 17 分钟。
如果是测试代码是下面这样,得到的结果会是怎样?猜!
| 1 2 3 4 5 | s2()-> L=[1,2,3,4,5,6], L2=[L,L,L,L], erlang:display( { {erts_debug:size(L),erts_debug:flat_size(L)},{erts_debug:size(L2),erts_debug:flat_size(L2)}} ). |
结果是
| 1 2 3 | 5> d:s2(). { {12,12},{56,56}} |
这个结果出来之后,我足足用了5分钟用来怀疑人生,为什么和期望的结果不一样呢?是因为我现在用的最新版本(17.2)吗?是实现已经修改掉但是没有更新文档吗?出于好奇,我还是按照之前探索问题的套路,生成了一下to_core文件,真相大白:
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 | 's2' /0 = %% Line 11 fun () -> let <_cor5> = %% Line 14 call 'erts_debug' : 'size' ([1|[2|[3|[4|[5|[6]]]]]]) in let <_cor4> = %% Line 14 call 'erts_debug' : 'flat_size' ([1|[2|[3|[4|[5|[6]]]]]]) in let <_cor3> = %% Line 14 call 'erts_debug' : 'size' ([[1|[2|[3|[4|[5|[6]]]]]]|[[1|[2|[3|[4|[5|[6]]]]]]|[[1|[2|[3|[4|[5|[6]]]]]]|[[1|[2|[3|[4|[5|[6]]]]]]]]]]) in let <_cor2> = %% Line 14 call 'erts_debug' : 'flat_size' ([[1|[2|[3|[4|[5|[6]]]]]]|[[1|[2|[3|[4|[5|[6]]]]]]|[[1|[2|[3|[4|[5|[6]]]]]]|[[1|[2|[3|[4|[5|[6]]]]]]]]]]) in %% Line 14 call 'erlang' : 'display' ({ {_cor5,_cor4},{_cor3,_cor2}}) |
修改一下代码:
| 1 2 3 4 | s3(L)-> L2=[L,L,L,L], { {erts_debug:size(L),erts_debug:flat_size(L)},{erts_debug:size(L2),erts_debug:flat_size(L2)}} . |
对应的s3的代码是
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 | 's3' /1 = %% Line 18 fun (_cor0) -> let <L2> = %% Line 19 [_cor0|[_cor0|[_cor0|[_cor0|[]]]]] in let <_cor5> = %% Line 20 call 'erts_debug' : 'size' (_cor0) in let <_cor4> = %% Line 20 call 'erts_debug' : 'flat_size' (_cor0) in let <_cor3> = %% Line 20 call 'erts_debug' : 'size' (L2) in let <_cor2> = %% Line 20 call 'erts_debug' : 'flat_size' (L2) in %% Line 20 { {_cor5,_cor4},{_cor3,_cor2}} |
换句话,在编译阶段s2方法里面的常量数据就已经展开了,所以L2无论是size还是flat_size都是一样的.之所以要先把这个测试做了,就是避免后面的测试误入陷阱.
这个怎么破呢?除了上面传入参数的方法之外,还有一个路子:换成函数调用即可,如下:
| 1 2 3 4 5 | s4()-> L=lists:seq(1,6), L2=[L,L,L,L], erlang:display( { {erts_debug:size(L),erts_debug:flat_size(L)},{erts_debug:size(L2),erts_debug:flat_size(L2)}} ). |
对应的代码为:
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 | 's4' /0 = %% Line 24 fun () -> let <L> = %% Line 25 call 'lists' : 'seq' (1, 6) in let <L2> = %% Line 26 [L|[L|[L|[L|[]]]]] in let <_cor5> = %% Line 27 call 'erts_debug' : 'size' (L) in let <_cor4> = %% Line 27 call 'erts_debug' : 'flat_size' (L) in let <_cor3> = %% Line 27 call 'erts_debug' : 'size' (L2) in let <_cor2> = %% Line 27 call 'erts_debug' : 'flat_size' (L2) in %% Line 27 call 'erlang' : 'display' ({ {_cor5,_cor4},{_cor3,_cor2}}) |
不要小看这个问题,这样一个常量优化在极端情况下会有"大惊喜",论文里面给了这样一个例子:
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | show_compiler_crashes() -> L0 = [0], L1 = [L0, L0, L0, L0, L0, L0, L0, L0, L0, L0], L2 = [L1, L1, L1, L1, L1, L1, L1, L1, L1, L1], L3 = [L2, L2, L2, L2, L2, L2, L2, L2, L2, L2], L4 = [L3, L3, L3, L3, L3, L3, L3, L3, L3, L3], L5 = [L4, L4, L4, L4, L4, L4, L4, L4, L4, L4], L6 = [L5, L5, L5, L5, L5, L5, L5, L5, L5, L5], L7 = [L6, L6, L6, L6, L6, L6, L6, L6, L6, L6], L8 = [L7, L7, L7, L7, L7, L7, L7, L7, L7, L7], L9 = [L8, L8, L8, L8, L8, L8, L8, L8, L8, L8], L = [L9, L9, L9, L9, L9, L9, L9, L9, L9, L9], L. |
$ erlc demo.erl
Crash dump was written to: erl_crash.dump eheap_alloc: Cannot allocate 3716993744 bytes of memory (of type "heap_frag"). Abort
好吧,勇于自黑,由于上面遇到这样让人恼火的问题,我决定在Shell中完成后续的测试,然后,我一脚踏进"新坑":
陷阱2 Shell ! Shell !
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | Eshell V6.0 (abort with ^G) 1> L=[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] 2> L2=[L,L,L,L,L,L]. [[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]] 3> erts_debug:size(L2). 32 4> erts_debug:flat_size(L2). 132 5> io:format( "~p" ,[L2]). [[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]]ok 6> erts_debug:size(L2). 32 7> erts_debug:flat_size(L2). 132 |
一开始启动shell的时候,Shell的Pid是<0.33.0>.然后我们在中间故意执行一个不存在的方法 fake:fake().这时查看一下,Shell已经重启,Pid变成<0.40.0>.注意再执行erts_debug:size(L2).结果已经变成了132了,换句话说,这里L2数据已经展开了.
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | Eshell V6.0 (abort with ^G) 1> self(). <0.33.0> 2> L=[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] 3> L2=[L,L,L,L,L,L]. [[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]] 4> erts_debug:size(L2). 32 5> erts_debug:flat_size(L2). 132 6> fake:fake(). ** exception error: undefined function fake:fake/0 7> self(). <0.40.0> 8> erts_debug:size(L2). 132 9> erts_debug:flat_size(L2). 132 10> |
那为什么会触发数据展开(expand ,flattening)呢? 看下面的代码,在Shell启动的时候,会把之前已经绑定的变量作为spawn_link参数以启动新的shell.
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | erl6.2\lib\stdlib-2.2\src start_eval(Bs, RT, Ds) -> Self = self(), Eval = spawn_link(fun() -> evaluator(Self, Bs, RT, Ds) end), put(evaluator, Eval), Eval. |
换句话说,Erlang中使用spawn创建进程,传入的参数(包括函数闭包),需要拷贝到新进程的heap,换句话说进程创建的时候需要考虑参数的大小.
OK,这个问题差不多了,休息.
本文转自博客园坚强2002的博客，原文链接：
如需转载请自行联系原博主。