std::map allocation node packing?

I have noticed that the std::map implementation of Visual Studio (2010) allocates a new single block of memory for each node in its red-black tree. That is, for each element in the map a single new block of raw memory will be allocated via operator new ... malloc with the default allocation scheme of the std::map of the Visual Studio STL implementation.

This appears a bit wasteful to me: Wouldn't it make more sense to allocate the nodes in blocks of "(small) n", just as std::vector implementations over-allocate on growth?

So I'd like the following points clarified:

• Is my assertion about the default allocation scheme actually correct?
• Do "all" STL implementations of std::map work this way?
• Is there anything in the std preventing a std::map implementation from putting its nodes into blocks of memory instead of allocation a new block of memory (via its allocator) for each node? (Complexity guarantees, etc.)?

Note: This is not about premature optimization. If its about optimization, then its about if 开发者_开发知识库an app has problem with (std::)map memory fragmentation, are there alternatives to using a custom allocator that uses a memory pool? This question is not about custom allocators but about how the map implementation uses its allocator. (Or so I hope it is.)

Your assertion is correct for most implementations of std::map.

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the standard preventing a map from using an allocation scheme such as you describe. However, you can get what you describe with a custom allocator — but forcing that scheme on all maps could be wasteful. Because map has no a priori knowledge of how it will be used, certain use patterns could prevent deallocations of mostly-unused blocks. For example, say blocks were allocated for 4 nodes at a time, but a particular map is filled with 40 nodes, then 30 nodes erased, leaving a worst case of one node left per block as map cannot invalidate pointers/references/iterators to that last node.

When you insert elements into a map, it's guaranteed that existing iterators won't be invalidated. Therefore, if you insert an element "B" between two nodes A and C that happen to be contiguous and inside the same heap allocated area, you can't shuffle them to make space, and B will have to be put elsewhere. I don't see any particular problem with that, except that managing such complexities will swell the implementation. If you erase elements then iterators can't be invalidated either, which implies any memory allocation has to hang around until all the nodes therein are erased. You'd probably need a freelist within each "swollen node"/vector/whatever-you-want-to-call-it - effectively duplicating at least some of the time-consuming operations that new/delete currently do for you.

I'm quite certain I've never seen an implementation of std::map that attempted to coalesce multiple nodes into a single allocation block. At least right offhand I can't think of a reason it couldn't work, but I think most implementors would see it as unnecessary, and leave optimization of memory allocation to the allocator instead of worrying about it much in the map itself.

Admittedly, most custom allocators are written to deal better with allocation of a large number of small blocks. You could probably render the vast majority of such optimization unnecessary by writing map (and, of course, set, multiset, and multimap) to just use larger allocations instead. OTOH, given that allocators to optimize small block allocations are easily/common/widely available, there's probably not a lot of motivation to change the map implementation this way either.

I think the only thing you cannot do is to invalidate iterators, which you might have to do if you have to reallocate your storage. Having said that, I've seen implementations using single sorted array of objects wrapped in the std::map interface. That was done for a certain reason, of course.

Actually, what you can do is just instantiate your std::map with you custom allocator, which will find memory for new nodes in a special, non-wasteful way.

This appears a bit wasteful to me. Wouldn't it make more sense to allocate the nodes in blocks of "(small) n", just as std::vector implementations over-allocate on growth

Interestingly I see it in a completely different way. I find it is appropriate and it doesn't waste any memory. At least with defaul STL allocators on Windows (MS VS 2008), HP-UX (gcc with STLport) and Linux (gcc without STLport). What is important is that these allocators do care about memory fragmentation and it seems they can handle this question pretty well. For example, look for Low-fragmentation Heap on Windows or SBA (Small block allocator) on HP-UX. I mean that frequently allocating and deallocating memory only for one node at a time doesn't have to result in memory fragmentation. I tested std::map myself in one of my programs and it indeed didn't cause any memory fragmentation with these allocators.

Is my assertion about the default allocation scheme actually correct?

I have MS VisualStudio 2008 and its std::map behaves in the same way. On HP-UX I use gcc with and without STLport and it seem that their STL maps have the same approach to allocating memory for nodes in the std::map.

is there anything in the std preventing a std::map implementation from putting its nodes into blocks of memory instead of allocation a new block of memory (via its allocator) for each node?

Start with tuning a default allocator on your platform if it is possible. It is useful here to quote the Douglas Lea who is an author of DL-Malloc

... first I wrote a number of special-purpose allocators in C++, normally by overloading operator new for various classes. ...

However, I soon realized that building a special allocator for each new class that tended to be dynamically allocated and heavily used was not a good strategy when building kinds of general-purpose programming support classes I was writing at the time. (From 1986 to 1991, I was the the primary author of libg++ , the GNU C++ library.) A broader solution was needed -- to write an allocator that was good enough under normal C++ and C loads so that programmers would not be tempted to write special-purpose allocators except under very special conditions.

Or as a little bit more difficult idea you can even try to test your application with Hoard allocator. I mean just test your application and see if there is any benefit as for performance or fragmentation.