We Keep Coding

How can I debug an internal error in the .NET Runtime?

I am trying to debug some work that processes large files. The code itself works, but there are sporadic errors reported from the .NET Runtime itself. For context, the processing here is a 1.5GB file (loaded into memory once only) being processed and released in a loop, deliberately to try to reproduce this otherwise unpredictable error.
My test fragment is basically:
try {
byte[] data =File.ReadAllBytes(path);
for(int i = 0 ; i < 500 ; i++)
{
ProcessTheData(data); // deserialize and validate
// force collection, for tidiness
GC.Collect(GC.MaxGeneration, GCCollectionMode.Forced);
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
}
} catch(Exception ex) {
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
// some more logging; StackTrace, recursive InnerException, etc
}
(with some timing and other stuff thrown in)
The loop will process fine for an non-deterministic number of iterations fully successfully - no problems whatsoever; then the process will terminate abruptly. The exception handler is not hit. The test does involve a lot of memory use, but it saw-tooths very nicely during each iteration (there is not an obvious memory leak, and I have plenty of headroom - 14GB unused primary memory at the worst point in the saw-tooth). The process is 64-bit.
The windows error-log contains 3 new entries, which (via exit code 80131506) suggest an Execution Engine error - a nasty little critter. A related answer, suggests a GC error, with a "fix" to disable concurrent GC; however this "fix" does not prevent the issue.
Clarification: this low-level error does not hit the CurrentDomain.UnhandledException event.
Clarification: the GC.Collect is there only to monitor the saw-toothing memory, to check for memory leaks and to keep things predictable; removing it does not make the problem go away: it just makes it keep more memory between iterations, and makes the dmp files bigger ;p
By adding more console tracing, I have observed it faulting during each of:
during deserialization (lots of allocations, etc)
during GC (between a GC "approach" and a GC "complete", using the GC notification API)
during validation (just foreach over some of the data) - curiously just after a GC "complete" during the validation
So lots of different scenarios.
I can obtain crash-dump (dmp) files; how can I investigate this further, to see what the system is doing when it fails so spectacularly?

If you have memory dumps, I'd suggest using WinDbg to look at them, assuming that you're not doing that already.
Trying running the comment !EEStack (mixed native and managed stack trace), and see if there's anything that might jump out in the stack trace. In my test program, I found this one of the times as my stack trace where a FEEE happened (I was purposefully corrupting the heap):
0:000> !EEStack
---------------------------------------------
Thread 0
Current frame: ntdll!NtWaitForSingleObject+0xa
Child-SP RetAddr Caller, Callee
00000089879bd3d0 000007fc586610ea KERNELBASE!WaitForSingleObjectEx+0x92, calling ntdll!NtWaitForSingleObject
00000089879bd400 000007fc5869811c KERNELBASE!RaiseException+0x68, calling ntdll!RtlRaiseException
[...]
00000089879bec80 000007fc49109cf6 clr!WKS::gc_heap::gc1+0x96, calling clr!WKS::gc_heap::mark_phase
00000089879becd0 000007fc49109c21 clr!WKS::gc_heap::garbage_collect+0x222, calling clr!WKS::gc_heap::gc1
00000089879bed10 000007fc491092f1 clr!WKS::GCHeap::RestartEE+0xa2, calling clr!Thread::ResumeRuntime
00000089879bed60 000007fc4910998d clr!WKS::GCHeap::GarbageCollectGeneration+0xdd, calling clr!WKS::gc_heap::garbage_collect
00000089879bedb0 000007fc4910df9c clr!WKS::GCHeap::Alloc+0x31b, calling clr!WKS::GCHeap::GarbageCollectGeneration
00000089879bee00 000007fc48ff82e1 clr!JIT_NewArr1+0x481
Since this could be related to heap corruption from the garbage collector, I would try the !VerifyHeap command. At least you could make sure that the heap is intact (and your problem lies elsewhere) or discover that your issue might actually be with the GC or some P/Invoke routines corrupting it.
If you find that the heap is corrupt, I might try and discover how much of the heap is corrupted, which you might be able to do via !HeapStat. That might just show the entire heap corrupt from a certain point, though.
It's difficult to suggest any other methods to analyze this via WinDbg, since I have no real clue about what your code is doing or how it's structured.
I suppose if you find it to be an issue with the heap and thus meaning it could be GC weirdness, I would look at the CLR GC events in Event Tracing for Windows.
If the minidumps you're getting aren't cutting it and you're using Windows 7/2008R2 or later, you can use Global Flags (gflags.exe) to attach a debugger when the process terminates without an exception, if you're not getting a WER notification.
In the Silent Process Exit tab, enter the name of the executable, not the full path to it (ie. TestProgram.exe). Use the following settings:
Check Enable Silent Process Exit Monitoring
Check Launch Monitor Process
For the Monitor Process, use {path to debugging tools}\cdb.exe -server tcp:port=5005 -g -G -p %e.
And apply the settings.
When your test program crashes, cdb will attach and wait for you to connect to it. Start WinDbg, type Ctrl+R, and use the connection string: tcp:port=5005,server=localhost.
You might be able to skip using remote debugging and instead use {path to debugging tools}\windbg.exe %e. However, the reason I suggested remote instead, was because WerFault.exe, which I believe is what reads the registry and launches the monitor process, will start the debugger in Session 0.
You can make session 0 interactive and connect to the window station, but I can't remember how that's done. It's also inconvenient, because you'd have to switch back and forth between sessions if you need to access any of your existing windows you've had open.

Tools->Debugging->General->Enable .Net Framework Debugging
+
Tools->IntelliTace-> IntelliTaceEbents And Call Information
+
Tools->IntelliTace-> Set StorIntelliTace Recordings in this directory
and choose a directory
should allow you to step INTO .net code and trace every single function call.
I tried it on a small sample project and it works
after each debug session it suppose to create a recording of the debug session. it the set directory
even if CLR dies if im not mistaken
this should allow you to get to the extact call before CLR collapsed.

Try writing a generic exception handler and see if there is an unhandled exception killing your app.
AppDomain currentDomain = AppDomain.CurrentDomain;
currentDomain.UnhandledException += new UnhandledExceptionEventHandler(MyExceptionHandler);
static void MyExceptionHandler(object sender, UnhandledExceptionEventArgs e) {
Console.WriteLine(e.ExceptionObject.ToString());
Console.WriteLine("Press Enter to continue");
Console.ReadLine();
Environment.Exit(1);

I usually invesitgate memory related problems with Valgrind and gdb.
If you run your things on Windows, there are plenty of good alternatives such as verysleepy for callgrind as suggested here:
Is there a good Valgrind substitute for Windows?
If you really want to debug internal errors of the .NET runtime, you have the problem that there is no source for neither the class libraries nor the VM.
Since you can't debug what you don't have, I suggest that (apart from decompiling the .NET framework libraries in question with ILSpy, and adding them to your project, which still doesn't cover the vm) you could use the mono runtime.
There you have both the source of the class libraries as well as of the VM.
Maybe your program works fine with mono, then your problem would be solved, at least as long as it's only a one-time-processing task.
If not, there is an extensive FAQ on debugging, including GDB support
http://www.mono-project.com/Debugging
Miguel also has this post regarding valgrind support:
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jun-29.html
In addition to that, if you let it run on Linux, you can also use strace, to see what's going on in the syscalls. If you don't have extensive winforms usage or WinAPI calls, .NET programs usually work fine on Linux (for problems regarding file system case-sensitivity, you can loopmount a case-insensitive file system and/or use MONO_IOMAP).
If you're Windows centric person, this post
says the closest thing Windows has is WinDbg's Logger.exe, but ltrace information is not as extensive.
Mono sourcecode is available here:
http://download.mono-project.com/sources/
You are probably interested in the sources of the latest mono version
http://download.mono-project.com/sources/mono/mono-3.0.3.tar.bz2
If you need framework 4.5, you'll need mono 3, you can find precompiled packages here
https://www.meebey.net/posts/mono_3.0_preview_debian_ubuntu_packages/
If you want to make changes to the sourcecode, this is how to compile it:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1591370

There are .NET exceptions which can not be caught. Check out: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd419661.aspx.

Are finalizers triggered when an application crashes? [duplicate]

Does a destructor get called if the app crashes? If it's an unhandled exception I'm guessing it does, but what about more serious errors, or something like a user killing the application process?
And a few more potentially dumb questions:
what happens to all the objects in an app when the app exits and all finalizers have been executed - do the objects get garbage collected or are they somehow all "unloaded" with the process or appdomain?
is the garbage collector part of each application (runs in the same process) or is it independent?

I would encourage you to try this for yourself. For example:
using System;
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
var t = new Test();
throw new Exception("kaboom");
}
}
class Test {
~Test() { Console.WriteLine("finalizer called"); }
}
Run this at the command prompt so you can see the last gasp. First with the throw statement commented out.
Like any unhandled exception in Windows, the default exception filter that Windows provides invokes the Windows Error Reporting dialog, displayed by WerFault.exe. If you click "Close program", WerFault will use TerminateProcess() to kill the program. That's a quick end, there is no opportunity to run the finalizer thread, as would happen when a program exits normally.
Windows then takes care of cleanup up the shrapnel. It automatically closes any operating system handles your program might have opened but didn't get a chance to close in the finalizer. Files are the trickier problem here, their buffers don't get flushed and you'll easily end up with a partially written file on disk.

If killing an application, the application would almost 100% lost the control immediately and there's no chance for it to call the destructor.

I don't even know C#, but based on my experiences with other programming languages I would guess: If an app crashes, that means there's something seriously wrong with it. Incorrect memory handling etc. It would be strange for any programming language to try to execute destructors/deallocators/finalizers/... in such a case. Things would probably just go more wrong ;)
Update: (forgot to try to answer your other questions) again, not C#-specific, but typically there is no guarantee that destructors/deallocators/finalizers/... actually get called. The reason for this is that when a process quits it is much easier and more efficient to simply "zap" the memory block used for the process than to run its destructors etc. to clean up the memory.
I'm not sure how to answer your last question without going into too much technical detail. There are several ways in which garbage collectors can be designed and made to run, the easiest is that garbage collection stops the current process and continues it when it's done, although it is also possible (but more difficult) to have garbage collectors which run concurrently with processes whose memory they are collecting.
You may want to read up on garbage collection theory to better understand all of this. There's actually a whole site about just this topic: www.memorymanagement.org.

semaphore implementation for counting no. of instances currently running

I am working on multi instance application. Is there any way in c# to know that how many instances are running currently.I used one peice of code to count the window processes of my application name but that is not a good way.
string fileName = Process.GetCurrentProcess().MainModule.FileName;
int count = 0;
foreach (Process p in Process.GetProcesses())
{
try
{
if (p.MainModule.FileName == fileName)
{
count++;
}
}
catch { }
}
MessageBox.Show("Total Instances Running are " + count);
Can it be done by using semaphore or some increment and decrement counter that is incremented by one when new instance is created and decrement by one when a instance closes.

A Semaphore helps you count down, blocking you when you get to 0. You could use a global semaphore, but you'll have to initialize it at a high enough-value and start counting down.
I think all in all, your own solution is probably the cleanest.

Why don't you use shared memory? Of course you have to protect it with a mutex visible to all processes, but in this way you can store commonly used data among all processes.
I suppose you have to P/Invoke platform routine is order to create a shared memory, but it really straightforward.

Managing multiple processes is never not a problem. The OS puts up a big wall between them that makes it just about anything hard and expensive. The code you are using is no exception, iterating running processes is expensive. Always first consider using threads instead and look for AppDomains in a .NET program, a feature expressly invented to provide the kind of isolation a process can provide but without the cost of a slaying the interop barrier.
If you are committed to a multi-process solution then you almost always need a separate process that acts as an arbiter. Responsible for ensuring the worker processes get started and doing something meaningful when one of them dies on an unhandled exception. Which is itself something that's very hard to deal with since there is no good way to get any info about the reason it died and you lost an enormous amount of state. The typical outcome is a malfunction of the entire app unless you give these processes very simple things to do that you can easily do without.
Such an arbiter process has no problem counting instances cheaply, it can use the Process.Exited event to maintain a counter. An event instead of having to poll.

What does it mean when Process.Start fails because "Insufficient system resources exist"

I have a C# application which launches another executable using Process.Start().
99% of the time this call works perfectly fine. After the application has run for quite some time though, Process.Start() will fail with the error message:
Insufficient system resources exist to complete the requested service
Initially I thought this must have been due to a memory leak in my program - I've profiled it fairly extensively and it doesn't appear there's a leak - the memory footprint will still be reasonable even when this message failed.
Immediately after a failure like this, if I print some of the system statistics it appears that I have over 600MB of RAM free, plenty of space on disk, and the CPU usage is effectively at 0%.
Is there some other system resource I haven't thought of? Am I running into a memory limit within the .NET VM?
Edit2:
I opened up the application in SysInternals Process Explorer and it looks like I'm leaking Handles left and right:
Handles Used: 11,950,352 (!)
GDI Handles: 26
USER Handles: 22
What's strange here is that the Win32 side of handles seem very reasonable, but somehow my raw handle count has exploded waaaaay out of control. Any ideas what could cause a Handle leak like this? I was originally convinced it was Process.Start() but that would be USER handles, wouldn't it?
Edit:
Here's an example of how I'm creating the process:
var pInfo = new ProcessStartInfo(path, ClientStartArguments)
{
UseShellExecute = false,
WorkingDirectory = workingDirectory
};
ClientProcess = Process.Start(pInfo);
Here's an example of how I kill the same process (later in the program after I have interacted with the process):
Process[] clientProcesses = Process.GetProcessesByName(ClientProcessName);
if (clientProcesses.Length > 0)
{
foreach (var clientProcess in clientProcesses.Where(
clientProcess => clientProcess.HasExited == false))
{
clientProcess.Kill();
}
}

The problem here is with retained process handles. As we can see from your later edits you are keeping a reference to the Process object returned by Process.Start(). As mentioned in the documentation of Process:
Like many Windows resources, a process is also identified by its handle, which might not be unique on the computer. A handle is the generic term for an identifier of a resource. The operating system persists the process handle, which is accessed through the Handle property of the Process component, even when the process has exited. Thus, you can get the process's administrative information, such as the ExitCode (usually either zero for success or a nonzero error code) and the ExitTime. Handles are an extremely valuable resource, so leaking handles is more virulent than leaking memory.
I especially like the use of the word virulent. You need to dispose and release the reference to Process.
Also check out this excellent question and it's corresponding answer: Not enough memory or not enough handles?

Since the Process class implements IDisposable, it is good practice to properly dispose of it when you are done. In this case, it will prevent handle leaks.
using (var p = new Process())
{
p.StartInfo = new ProcessStartInfo(#"C:\windows\notepad.exe");
p.Start();
p.WaitForExit();
}
If you are calling Process.Kill() and the process has already exited, you will get an InvalidOperationException.

That's not an uncommon problem to have with little programs like this. The problem is that you are using a large amount of system resources but very little memory. You don't put enough pressure on the garbage collected heap so the collector never runs. So finalizable objects, the wrappers for system handles like Process and Thread, never get finalized.
Simply disposing the Process object after the process has exited will go a long way to solve the problem. But might not solve it completely, any threads that the Process class uses or you use yourself consume 5 operating system handles each. The Thread class doesn't have a Dispose() method. It should but it doesn't, it is next to impossible to call it correctly.
The solution is triggering a garbage collection yourself. Count the number of times you start a process. Every, say, hundredth time call GC.Collect(). Keep an eye on the Handle count with Taskmgr.exe. Use View + Select Columns to add it. Fine tune the GC.Collect calls to so that it doesn't increase beyond, say, 500.

Very High Memory Usage in .NET 4.0

I have a C# Windows Service that I recently moved from .NET 3.5 to .NET 4.0. No other code changes were made.
When running on 3.5, memory utilzation for a given work load was roughly 1.5 GB of memory and throughput was 20 X per second. (The X doesn't matter in the context of this question.)
The exact same service running on 4.0 uses between 3GB and 5GB+ of memory, and gets less than 4 X per second. In fact, the service will typically end up stalling out as memory usage continue to climb until my system is siting at 99% utilization and page file swapping goes nuts.
I'm not sure if this has to do with garbage collection, or what, but I'm having trouble figuring it out. My window service uses the "Server" GC via the config file switch seen below:
<runtime>
<gcServer enabled="true"/>
</runtime>
Changing this option to false didn't seem to make a difference. Futhermore, from the reading I've done on the new GC in 4.0, the big changes only effect the workstation GC mode, not server GC mode. So perhaps GC has nothing to do with the issue.
Ideas?

Well this was an interesting one.
The root cause turns out to be a change in the behavior of SQL Server Reporting Services' LocalReport class (v2010) when running this on top of .NET 4.0.
Basically, Microsoft altered the behavior of RDLC processing so that each time a report was processed it was done so in a seperate application domain. This was actually done specifically to address a memory leak caused by the inability to unload assemblies from app domains. When the LocalReport class processed an RDLC file, it actually creates an assembly on the fly and loads it into the app domain.
In my case, due to the large volume of report I was processing, this was resulting in very large numbers of System.Runtime.Remoting.ServerIdentity objects being created. This was my tip off to the cause, as I was confused as to why processing an RLDC required remoting.
Of course, to call a method on a class in another app domain, remoting is exactly what you use. In .NET 3.5, this wasn't necessary as, by default, the RDLC-assembly was loaded into the same app domain. In .NET 4.0, however, a new app domain is created by default.
The fix was fairly easy. First I needed to go enable legacy security policy using the following config:
<runtime>
<NetFx40_LegacySecurityPolicy enabled="true"/>
</runtime>
Next, I needed to force the RDLCs to be processed in the same app domain as my service by calling the following:
myLocalReport.ExecuteReportInCurrentAppDomain(AppDomain.CurrentDomain.Evidence);
This resolved the issue.

I ran into this exact issue. And it is true that app domains are created and not cleaned up. However I wouldn't recommend reverting to legacy. They can be cleaned up by ReleaseSandboxAppDomain().
LocalReport report = new LocalReport();
...
report.ReleaseSandboxAppDomain();
Some other things I also do to clean up:
Unsubscribe to any SubreportProcessing events,
Clear Data Sources,
Dispose the report.
Our windows service processes several reports a second and there are no leaks.

I'm pretty late to this, but I have a real solution and can explain why!
It turns out that LocalReport here is using .NET Remoting to dynamically create a sub appdomain and run the report in order to avoid a leak internally somewhere. We then notice that, eventually, the report will release all the memory after 10 to 20 minutes. For people with a lot of PDFs being generated, this isn't going to work. However, the key here is that they are using .NET Remoting. One of the key parts to Remoting is something called "Leasing". Leasing means that it will keep that Marshal Object around for a while since Remoting is usually expensive to setup and its probably going to be used more than once. LocalReport RDLC is abusing this.
By default, the leasing time is... 10 minutes! Also, if something makes various calls into it, it adds another 2 minutes to the wait time! Thus, it can randomly be between 10 and 20 minutes depending how the calls line up. Luckily, you can change how long this timeout happens. Unluckily, you can only set this once per app domain... Thus, if you need remoting other than PDF generation, you will probably need to make another service running it so you can change the defaults. To do this, all you need to do is run these 4 lines of code at startup:
LifetimeServices.LeaseTime = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5);
LifetimeServices.LeaseManagerPollTime = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5);
LifetimeServices.RenewOnCallTime = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1);
LifetimeServices.SponsorshipTimeout = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5);
You'll see the memory use start to rise and then within a few seconds you should see the memory start coming back down. Took me days with a memory profiler to really track this down and realize what was happening.
You can't wrap ReportViewer in a using statement (Dispose crashes), but you should be able to if you use LocalReport directly. After that disposes, you can call GC.Collect() if you want to be doubly sure you are doing everything you can to free up that memory.
Hope this helps!
Edit
Apparently, you should call GC.Collect(0) after generating a PDF report or else it appears the memory use could still get high for some reason.

You might want to
profile the heap
use WinDbg + SOS.dll to establish what resource is being leaked and from where the reference is held
Perhaps some API has changed semantics or there might even be a bug in the 4.0 version of the framework

Just for completeness, if anyone is looking for the equivalent ASP.Net web.config setting, it is:
<system.web>
<trust legacyCasModel="true" level="Full"/>
</system.web>
ExecuteReportInCurrentAppDomain works the same.
Thanks to this Social MSDN reference.

It seems as though Microsoft tried putting the report into its own separate memory space to work around all of the memory leaks rather than fix them. In doing so, they introduced some hard crashes, and ended up having more memory leaks anyway. They seem to cache the report definition, but never use it and never clean it up, and every new report creates a new report definition, taking up more and more memory.
I played around with doing the same thing: use a separate app domain and marshal the report over to it. I think that is a terrible solution and makes a mess very quickly.
What I did instead is similar: split the reporting part of your program out into its own separate reports program. This turns out to be a good way to organize your code anyway.
The tricky part is passing information to the separate program. Use the Process class to start a new instance of the reports program and pass any parameters it needs on the command line. The first parameter should be an enum or similar value indicating the report that should be printed. My code for this in the main program looks something like:
const string sReportsProgram = "SomethingReports.exe";
public static void RunReport1(DateTime pDate, int pSomeID, int pSomeOtherID) {
RunWithArgs(ReportType.Report1, pDate, pSomeID, pSomeOtherID);
}
public static void RunReport2(int pSomeID) {
RunWithArgs(ReportType.Report2, pSomeID);
}
// TODO: currently no support for quoted args
static void RunWithArgs(params object[] pArgs) {
// .Join here is my own extension method which calls string.Join
RunWithArgs(pArgs.Select(arg => arg.ToString()).Join(" "));
}
static void RunWithArgs(string pArgs) {
Console.WriteLine("Running Report Program: {0} {1}", sReportsProgram, pArgs);
var process = new Process();
process.StartInfo.FileName = sReportsProgram;
process.StartInfo.Arguments = pArgs;
process.Start();
}
And the reports program looks something like:
[STAThread]
static void Main(string[] pArgs) {
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
var reportType = (ReportType)Enum.Parse(typeof(ReportType), pArgs[0]);
using (var reportForm = GetReportForm(reportType, pArgs))
Application.Run(reportForm);
}
static Form GetReportForm(ReportType pReportType, string[] pArgs) {
switch (pReportType) {
case ReportType.Report1: return GetReport1Form(pArgs);
case ReportType.Report2: return GetReport2Form(pArgs);
default: throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("pReportType", pReportType, null);
}
}
Your GetReportForm methods should pull the report definition, make use of relevant arguments to obtain the dataset, pass the data and any other arguments to the report, and then place the report in a report viewer on a form and return a reference to the form. Note that it is possible to extract much of this process so that you can basically say 'give me a form for this report from this assembly using this data and these arguments'.
Also note that both programs must be able to see your data types that are relevant to this project, so hopefully you have extracted your data classes into their own library, which both of these programs can share a reference to. It would not work to have all of the data classes in the main program, because you would have a circular dependency between the main program and the report program.
Don't over do it with the arguments, either. Do any database querying you need in the reports program; don't pass a huge list of objects (which probably wouldn't work anyway). You should just be passing simple things like database ID fields, date ranges, etc. If you have particularly complex parameters, you might need to push that part of the UI to the reports program too and not pass them as arguments on the command line.
You can also put a reference to the reports program in your main program, and the resulting .exe and any related .dlls will be copied to the same output folder. You can then run it without specifying a path and just use the executable filename by itself (ie: "SomethingReports.exe"). You can also remove the reporting dlls from the main program.
One issue with this is that you will get a manifest error if you've never actually published the reports program. Just dummy publish it once, to generate a manifest and then it will work.
Once you have this working, it's very nice to see your regular program's memory stay constant when printing a report. The reports program appears, taking up more memory than your main program, and then disappears, cleaning it up completely with your main program taking up no more memory than it already had.
Another issue might be that each report instance will now take up more memory than before, since they are now entire separate programs. If the user prints a lot of reports and never closes them, it will use up a lot of memory very fast. But I think this is still much better since that memory can easily be reclaimed simply by closing the reports.
This also makes your reports independent of your main program. They can stay open even after closing the main program, and you can generate them from the command line manually, or from other sources as well.