 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / .NET Framework / CLR / October 2003Question on Assembly Loading and Memory
Hi all, I have a fairly open question in regards how memory usage is affected by linking in various assemblies. Basically I seem to remember that the .net runtime compiles code as it uses it, so if there's some unused code inside of my own assemblies that code may never get loaded or even compiled for that matter. What is granularity that .Net chooses here? Is it based on per method basis, per class, per assembly? Along the same lines how and when are assembly references resolved? For example, assume I have an application that links to a logging module. This logging module in turn links to another assembly that contains email support. If I don't use the Email support in this app, is the email code never loaded and furthermore would the code startup and run if the assembly DLL is not there? +++ Rick ---  SignatureRick Strahl West Wind Technologies http://www.west-wind.com/ http://www.west-wind.com/wwHelp ---------------------------------- Making waves on the Web Rick, >Basically I seem to remember that the .net runtime compiles code as it uses >it, so if there's some unused code inside of my own assemblies that code may >never get loaded or even compiled for that matter. What is granularity that >.Net chooses here? Is it based on per method basis, per class, per assembly? I'm pretty sure JIT compilation happens on a per method basis, but I can't find anything to confirm it at the moment. >Along the same lines how and when are assembly references resolved? Lazily, on first use. >For >example, assume I have an application that links to a logging module. This >logging module in turn links to another assembly that contains email >support. If I don't use the Email support in this app, is the email code >never loaded and furthermore would the code startup and run if the assembly >DLL is not there? It depends on how the logging module is written. If the parts that need the e-mail support are well isolated so that none of the types or methods that use the e-mail component are loaded / jitted, the e-mail assembly shouldn't have to be loaded. Mattias SignatureMattias Sjögren [MVP] mattias @ mvps.org http://www.msjogren.net/dotnet/ Please reply only to the newsgroup. THanks Mattias, That's kind of what I've come up with in my informal tests. It seems from a perspective of memory usage and loading unneccesary stuff .Net is doing really well... However, I also seem to remember a number of people recommended to be really careful about assembly references added to projects and try to minimze to keep load size etc. down. Assuming you use a component only for a very specific feature then it appears there's little overhead for doing so... FOr example, one thing I always squeamed at was using System.Web.HttpUtility.UrlEncode() in fear of pulling in System.Web. The dependency is otehr than that the overhead of using a simple function like that should be minmal. It's funny I remember reading up on this stuff a few years back, but I can't remember it nor where... wasn't ready to assimilate at the time <g>... +++ Rick --- SignatureRick Strahl West Wind Technologies http://www.west-wind.com/ http://www.west-wind.com/wwHelp ---------------------------------- Making waves on the Web > Rick, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Mattias Mattias has it right. The CLR tries to be as lazy as possible with regard to loading of modules, types, and methods. There is a small per-module, per-class, and per-method overhead that you incur just once as soon as the respective module, class, or method is loaded for the first time. However, it may not be completely obvious when you will incur this overhead. For example, when the CLR JITs a method, if that method refers to a type in another module, that module will need to be loaded at JIT time. This will be the case even if the relevant code will never execute in practice. Inlining makes it even more difficult to determine exactly what you are using. So in general you will get the lazy behavior that you expect, but if you are relying on this for your performance, I encourage you to measure this and make sure this module doesn't get loaded in your key scenarios. -- Ori. -------------------- >From: "Rick Strahl [MVP]" <rickstrahl@hotmail.com> >References: <O0jLHGeiDHA.3484@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl> <uiFLGXhiDHA.2748@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl> >Subject: Re: Question on Assembly Loading and Memory >Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 18:50:20 -1000 [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >> >> Mattias SignatureThis posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to this message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they originated. Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.