Fix memory leak #1900

naiveHobo · 2020-07-31T19:45:28Z

Basic Info

Info	Please fill out this column
Ticket(s) this addresses	#1860
Primary OS tested on	Ubuntu 18.04
Robotic platform tested on	Turtlebot3 Gazebo

Description of contribution in a few bullet points

Fixes shared_ptr (created through shared_from_this() cyclic dependencies in major servers which causes a memory leak on killing the system when the node is in any lifecycle state other than unconfigured.
All server were tested for memory leaks using valgrind (report below)
- Run the server using ros2 run --prefix 'valgrind --leak-check=full'
- In a separate terminal, manually make the configure lifecycle transition using ros2 lifecycle set /server_name configure
- After configure transition is successful, kill the server using ctrl + c

planner_server:

Before:
LEAK SUMMARY:
   definitely lost: 875 bytes in 41 blocks
   indirectly lost: 4,587 bytes in 63 blocks
     possibly lost: 887,563 bytes in 1,385 blocks
   still reachable: 8,052,031 bytes in 21,690 blocks
                      of which reachable via heuristic:
                        multipleinheritance: 20,552 bytes in 80 blocks
        suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks

After:
LEAK SUMMARY:
   definitely lost: 795 bytes in 38 blocks
   indirectly lost: 4,571 bytes in 65 blocks
     possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
   still reachable: 91,972 bytes in 205 blocks
        suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks

recovery_server:

Before:
LEAK SUMMARY:
   definitely lost: 1,032 bytes in 36 blocks
   indirectly lost: 3,677 bytes in 48 blocks
     possibly lost: 308,929 bytes in 728 blocks
   still reachable: 5,022,993 bytes in 11,043 blocks
                      of which reachable via heuristic:
                        multipleinheritance: 10,392 bytes in 39 blocks
        suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks

After:
LEAK SUMMARY:
   definitely lost: 744 bytes in 24 blocks
   indirectly lost: 2,621 bytes in 36 blocks
     possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
   still reachable: 53,562 bytes in 185 blocks
        suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks

controller_server:

Before:
LEAK SUMMARY:
   definitely lost: 1,595 bytes in 76 blocks
   indirectly lost: 11,429 bytes in 173 blocks
     possibly lost: 1,189,300 bytes in 2,196 blocks
   still reachable: 9,467,852 bytes in 25,774 blocks
                      of which reachable via heuristic:
                        multipleinheritance: 25,880 bytes in 98 blocks
        suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks

After:
LEAK SUMMARY:
   definitely lost: 995 bytes in 51 blocks
   indirectly lost: 9,453 bytes in 150 blocks
     possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
   still reachable: 106,448 bytes in 251 blocks
        suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks

costmap_2d:

Before:
LEAK SUMMARY:
   definitely lost: 2,328 bytes in 33 blocks
   indirectly lost: 450,004 bytes in 711 blocks
     possibly lost: 118,613 bytes in 267 blocks
   still reachable: 5,258,764 bytes in 13,553 blocks
                      of which reachable via heuristic:
                        multipleinheritance: 5,800 bytes in 28 blocks
        suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks

After:
LEAK SUMMARY:
   definitely lost: 824 bytes in 28 blocks
   indirectly lost: 3,429 bytes in 50 blocks
     possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
   still reachable: 56,522 bytes in 187 blocks
        suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks

Future work that may be required in bullet points

If the changes with the recovery server are approved, I can make similar changes for all servers which use pluginlib.

Recovery Server
Planner Server
Controller Server
Costmap 2d

naiveHobo · 2020-07-31T19:47:59Z

@SteveMacenski how do these changes look? When you run this branch and hit ctrl + c after providing the initial pose and activating all the system nodes, you'll notice LifecycleNode::~LifecycleNode() is not executed for planner_server, controller_server, and costmap_2d.

SteveMacenski · 2020-07-31T19:57:42Z

Could this be a problem in the behavior tree navigator too with the shared ptr in the blackboard?

you'll notice LifecycleNode::~LifecycleNode() is not executed for planner_server, controller_server, and costmap_2d.

Sorry, I thought this branch was supposed to resolve that?

SteveMacenski

Looks good in concept. I don't really love this lock need before accessing node_ but I get it. Would this work with a raw pointer as well and not increment up the shared pointer counter? I know that's generally frowned upon, but would avoid that and as long as the plugins go down before the servers (which would always happen) then the nodes are going to be value in that scope.

If we do go this way, I think it would be good to have the lifecycle node wrapper have a logger object we use so that we dont lock the node every time we need to just do something simple like logging.

naiveHobo · 2020-07-31T20:34:11Z

Sorry, I thought this branch was supposed to resolve that?

I made the fix for recovery server, just wanted to check with you to see if this makes sense.

Could this be a problem in the behavior tree navigator too with the shared ptr in the blackboard?

What I'm seeing is that the navigator gets destroyed properly after the initial pose is given and all the nodes are activated. However, it fails during destruction when the action server has an ongoing goal. I'm guessing it's the same issue but what confuses me is the fact that it gets destroyed properly after the initial pose is provided. At this point, all the BT nodes should be instantiated and hold the shared_ptr reference in the BT blackboard. We should also see an issue here if that's the case.

Would this work with a raw pointer as well and not increment up the shared pointer counter?

That should work. If we pass raw pointers to the plugin objects, the server destructor should still execute since nothing is holding the shared ptr. But I really don't think we should go that way. The plugin interface is that part where users are expected to write there own code and dealing with raw pointers there is just calling for several issues.

I don't really love this lock need before accessing node_ but I get it

I agree with you here, I'm not a fan of this method. A user writing their own controller/planner plugins can still choose to hold a shared_ptr to the parent rclcpp::Node object without knowing the implications in which case the memory leak will happen and all the warnings will be suppressed (like how it currently is). This issue needs a bit more discussion I think, we need a solution such the plugin interfaces can be provided in a way that a server side memory leak is not possible (unless gloriously misused of course).

SteveMacenski · 2020-07-31T21:00:35Z

But I really don't think we should go that way (wrt raw pointers)

I agree

A user writing their own controller/planner plugins can still choose to hold a shared_ptr to the parent rclcpp::Node object without knowing the implications in which case the memory leak will happen and all the warnings will be suppressed (like how it currently is).

That's the major reason I would want to do raw pointers, stop bad behavior or people blaming the framework for a subtle issue. Even if we document that, its liable to get lost.

naiveHobo · 2020-08-11T00:57:52Z

BT Navigator doesn't have a cyclic dependency anywhere. I can't quite figure out why BT Navigator exits badly sometimes, but I've noticed that only happens when the system is killed while a goal is being handled. Once the current goal is reached and the system is killed, everything exits normally.

Everything else seems to be fixed now. @SteveMacenski ready for review!

I thought about it a lot and decided to go against using weak pointers. Every class that receives a shared_ptr to an rclcpp::Node doesn't hold a reference anymore. Instead, it just holds a pointer to the node interfaces that it needs to get things done. This seems to be the more natural ros2 way of doing things.

SteveMacenski · 2020-08-11T02:34:09Z

SharedPtr & is basically giving it a pointer, without incrementing the reference counter. Therefore, its pretty much analogous to just giving the plugins the raw pointer underlying since there's no tracking of references. That feels marginally more clear since people not really familiar with smart pointers won't necessarily get the subtleties of SharedPtr &.

I do wonder though what the best option is of the two: SharedPtr & or get() raw. Even then, WeakPtr seems like the most 'real' solution, though will almost certainly result in problems down the line for users.

@mkhansenbot @crdelsey @cdelsey @wjwwood any input?

naiveHobo · 2020-08-11T19:12:52Z

Does it matter how a pointer to the parent rclcpp::Node is passed to a child object? The main issue for this memory leak was that several child objects held a shared_ptr to the parent rclcpp::Node that created the object (causing a cyclic dependency) mainly for logging through rclcpp::Node::get_logger() and to get the current time using rclcpp::Node::now(), among other functionalities. These are functions that can be accessed using different node interfaces of the rclcpp::Node.

From what I understood by following some core ros2 packages, a child object should never even need to hold a pointer to the parent rclcpp::Node that creates it (I can't think of a good reason at least). All subscriptions, publishers, servers, parameters, etc that need to be created by a child object should be done either during initialization or during some configuration call a pointer to the parent rclcpp::Node is provided. If that's the case, it should matter how we pass the pointer right?

SteveMacenski · 2020-08-11T19:42:11Z

What if we change the API for everything in plugin-land to use WeakPtr instead by signature, so we don't even give them the option of having a shared pointer?

That would make it so that users literally don't have the option to store a shared pointer (unless they lock and just store, but then its clearly on them that they're doing something odd because why else would we not give them that).

Between a raw pointer and a SharedPtr & there's not much technical difference, its more of a clarity thing. If you give a SharedPtr &, my guess is the majority of ROS2 users won't be familiar enough with smart pointers, at least initially, to register what's happening there. The raw pointer is very clear. The only issue is if they need to do something where they need a shared pointer but only have the raw pointer. In that case, the SharedPtr &, while less clear, gives the same required capabilities.

I think we need some external opinions on this. I don't have the answer. They all sound not-awesome in different ways. My engineering sense says WeakPtr, my open-source sense says raw pointer, and my 'lets just move on from this' sense says SharedPr &.

wjwwood · 2020-08-11T22:39:17Z

I'm not sure of all of the context here, but if you need to use the Node (or part of the node, e.g. NodeLoggingInterface or NodeBaseInterface) then you should store it as a weak pointer and check it before use each time to avoid circular dependencies.

If you just need it at the beginning, then you can take a NodeT &, or const NodeT & if you only call const methods, access it during the constructor only. You can store the Logger object separately from the Node at this time, it has not connection back to the node itself once created (it's just a string under the hood atm).

As for shared_ptr<NodeT> vs shared_ptr<NodeT> & vs const shared_ptr<NodeT> &, I'd recommend reading the c++ guidelines (R.34-36):

https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#Rr-sharedptrparam-owner

SteveMacenski · 2020-08-12T21:41:06Z

We can't give a couple of the interfaces unfortunately, the primary use-case is to give these nodes to the plugins that may need to themselves log, get parameters, create network interfaces, some have services, etc.

I think the weak pointer is the best solution then. Per your link, that's the kind of not-best-practices I was also looking to avoid but also trying to balance the simplest solution. Something like SharedPtr & can be deceptive and isn't best practice, a raw pointer I'm most happy with personally but I think that's equally "wrong" to just give a shared pointer's resource as a raw pointer, also doesn't increment the reference counter.

@naiveHobo what do you think? I'd like for us to come to a consensus before we change anything else since this PR affects so many things

naiveHobo · 2020-08-13T19:31:20Z

I agree, we should go with the weak pointer.

In the last few commits in this PR, I was able to remove the need to store a pointer to the parent rclcpp::Node altogether in all the objects that initially held a shared pointer. So, I'm assuming we want a weak pointer to the parent rclcpp::Node in all plugin interfaces now right? For things like logging and getting the current time, we can store a reference to the logging/clock objects during initialization/configuration so you don't have to lock the weak pointer every time you want to print something. Sounds good?

SteveMacenski · 2020-08-13T19:36:09Z

For things like logging and getting the current time, we can store a reference to the logging/clock objects during initialization/configuration so you don't have to lock the weak pointer every time you want to print something

For things we have in our control, yes. Though the internal of plugins from users we don't have that control and some plugins need the node for services / topics as well. I generally don't like the idea of pulling out interfaces from the node because if OR changes it, its going to cause is a mountainous headache, and much less clear to users what's happening. I prefer simpler and easier to maintain code above all else

Side question: would it work to have a weak pointer, lock it, and only unlock it in the destructor of the plugins? Would that have the intended outcome?

naiveHobo · 2020-08-13T19:40:58Z

I don't think that will work. The plugin objects are destroyed only when the parent rclcpp::Node destructor is executed. This destructor won't ever execute if the weak pointer is locked for the entire duration of the plugin objects existence since the reference counter would have incremented.

SteveMacenski · 2020-08-13T20:14:42Z

Got it

naiveHobo · 2020-08-14T19:47:47Z

@SteveMacenski this should be ready for review, though CI is failing because of the master to main switch.

SteveMacenski · 2020-08-14T19:50:27Z

@ruffsl This also fails on main branch too Error response from daemon: manifest for rosplanning/navigation2:master.debug not found

ruffsl · 2020-08-14T20:07:13Z

To reiterate, PR CI jobs are created using the config from branch that is to be pulled from, not necessarily the same as the version of the config files from the branch the is to be merged into. This this affords external contributions to test/customize config changes within the PR jobs themselves. It also means that if contributors wish to use the latest CI config, they'll need to rebase their PR on top of the branch they wish to merge into. This PR seems to still be using the CI config from before the migration.

https://github.com/naiveHobo/navigation2/blob/68c65abbd13b33ec50a41501c6d154e875ef0808/.circleci/config.yml#L321-L324

It would be nice to be able to test the merged result, but it seems like this is still a long open feature request for CircleCI: https://ideas.circleci.com/ideas/CCI-I-926

SteveMacenski

I think there's a few themes:

Going back over the github view and auditing the use of SharedPtr, in some cases you didn't change them and it's not immediately clear which should be weak or shared ptrs.
initializing loggers with empty strings, lets not do that, that will hurt us alot
In many cases the clock nor the logger were properly initialized to actually get the clock or logger from the node
Removed destroy logging, though I now see you added it to the lifecycle node destructor, you can ignore those comments.

nav2_amcl/src/amcl_node.cpp

nav2_core/include/nav2_core/global_planner.hpp

nav2_costmap_2d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/clear_costmap_service.hpp

nav2_costmap_2d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/costmap_2d_publisher.hpp

nav2_costmap_2d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/costmap_2d_ros.hpp

nav2_dwb_controller/dwb_core/src/publisher.cpp

nav2_navfn_planner/include/nav2_navfn_planner/navfn_planner.hpp

nav2_navfn_planner/src/navfn_planner.cpp

nav2_recoveries/include/nav2_recoveries/recovery.hpp

nav2_util/include/nav2_util/odometry_utils.hpp

…parent rclcpp::Node

SteveMacenski · 2020-08-14T20:12:59Z

How would an issue manifest if we didn't lock the weak pointer when we were supposed to when accessing it? Would we know via a crash or exception?

Some of these objects have activate / deactive functions. Could it make sense to put the lock and have a shared pointer in the activate and then unlock in deactivate so we don't have to deal with the semantics regularly (but still have ability to kill it before we enter any destructor items)

naiveHobo · 2020-08-14T20:22:09Z

How would an issue manifest if we didn't lock the weak pointer when we were supposed to when accessing it?

If you end up using a weak_ptr without locking, it won't have any of the base class functions available. The only way you can access the object the weak_ptr points to is by locking it. So it should crash I think.

Could it make sense to put the lock and have a shared pointer in the activate and then unlock in deactivate

It's the same issue again. If the node is killed during any lifecycle state before deactivating the node, the child objects would be holding a shared_ptr to the parent rclcpp::Node and none of the destructors would ever execute.

SteveMacenski · 2020-08-14T20:35:25Z

So it should crash I think.

Lets just verify that. The CPP docs on this aren't very specific. It would be good to know what it would look like if we made a mistake. This touches a bunch of code, so sooner or later we're going to have a problem from someone's PRs or missing something here. It would be good to know what the signals are. The docs just say It is not possible to access the stored pointer in a weak_ptr without locking it into a shared_ptr., which doesn't exactly mention: runtime error, compile time error, just not working no error, etc

It's the same issue again.

OK

codecov · 2020-08-14T20:41:51Z

Codecov Report

Merging #1900 into main will decrease coverage by 0.59%.
The diff coverage is 73.60%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1900      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   76.25%   75.66%   -0.60%     
==========================================
  Files         224      224              
  Lines       10956    11014      +58     
==========================================
- Hits         8355     8334      -21     
- Misses       2601     2680      +79

Flag	Coverage Δ
#project	`75.66% <73.60%> (-0.60%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
nav2_amcl/src/amcl_node.cpp	`84.54% <ø> (-0.03%)`	⬇️
nav2_core/include/nav2_core/controller.hpp	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
nav2_core/include/nav2_core/global_planner.hpp	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
nav2_core/include/nav2_core/goal_checker.hpp	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
nav2_core/include/nav2_core/progress_checker.hpp	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
nav2_core/include/nav2_core/recovery.hpp	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
...d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/costmap_2d_publisher.hpp	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
...tmap_2d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/costmap_2d_ros.hpp	`69.23% <0.00%> (ø)`
..._2d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/costmap_subscriber.hpp	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
...d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/footprint_subscriber.hpp	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
... and 52 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c9441b1...45775b3. Read the comment docs.

naiveHobo · 2020-08-14T22:15:00Z

@SteveMacenski Understandably, it's a compile time error:
base operand of ‘->’ has non-pointer type ‘std::weak_ptr<rclcpp_lifecycle::LifecycleNode>’

SteveMacenski · 2020-08-17T21:11:27Z

Let me know when I should look over this again

naiveHobo · 2020-08-17T21:12:19Z

Should be good for review right now

SteveMacenski

We need to really write a good section in the Foxy -> Galactic migration guide about this change, why it was necessary, and how to properly use.

Obviously this is a massive PR, so I will likely need to read through it another 2-3 times just to see if I catch anything else. It has little to do with you and more to do with the massive scope.

I'm a little concerned about the logger / clock initialization. For the costmap layers, I agree that logger_ is set in the constructor to layer, so no need for them to appear in there. I would though like you to do a review yourself to make sure everywhere has them properly set. This will be especially an issue that only certain users will run into because it could be easily masked and cause subtle issues. This touches so much, I can't say definitively that I was able to find 100% of them. Logs missing nodes would be really annoying to find later. And the wrong clocks used would be really hard to find as well.

@mikeferguson if you have 15-30 minutes and want to help, this would be a great PR to review and sanity check us.

SteveMacenski · 2020-08-17T21:24:21Z

nav2_controller/include/nav2_controller/plugins/simple_goal_checker.hpp

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ class SimpleGoalChecker : public nav2_core::GoalChecker
  SimpleGoalChecker();
  // Standard GoalChecker Interface
  void initialize(
-    const rclcpp_lifecycle::LifecycleNode::SharedPtr & nh,
+    const rclcpp_lifecycle::LifecycleNode::WeakPtr & parent,


For all instances: I don't think its generally best practice to pass smart pointers by reference. Weak ptrs might be different, but I don't see any documentation about that. Why not have the weakptr be by value?

From this comment: #1900 (comment) what you say makes sense to me, but the conventions around smart pointers are the opposite. We should discuss this and then resolve one way or another.

Passing shared_ptrs by reference makes sense (to avoid the overhead of incrementing and then decrementing the reference count). For a weak_ptr though, it doesn't have the same overhead - although the multiple copy/initialization argument does seem to make since for this use case.

nav2_costmap_2d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/clear_costmap_service.hpp

nav2_costmap_2d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/costmap_2d_publisher.hpp

nav2_costmap_2d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/costmap_subscriber.hpp

nav2_costmap_2d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/footprint_subscriber.hpp

nav2_costmap_2d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/observation_buffer.hpp

nav2_costmap_2d/src/costmap_2d_ros.cpp

nav2_costmap_2d/src/costmap_subscriber.cpp

nav2_dwb_controller/dwb_core/src/publisher.cpp

nav2_recoveries/include/nav2_recoveries/recovery.hpp

mikeferguson

This looks pretty good - there are a few things that appear to be common issues so I didn't call out every one of them:

When you call weak_ptr.lock() outside of the function it was initially passed in, you really should be checking that the returned shared_ptr is valid before dereferencing it.
there are a number of logger call lines that have been split into 2-3 lines, but are clearly not too long for the linter. seems that should be fixed?
see especially the comment on count_subscribers - pretty sure remapping will break unless you use publisher->get_subscription_count().

mikeferguson · 2020-08-18T00:24:55Z

nav2_controller/include/nav2_controller/plugins/simple_goal_checker.hpp

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ class SimpleGoalChecker : public nav2_core::GoalChecker
  SimpleGoalChecker();
  // Standard GoalChecker Interface
  void initialize(
-    const rclcpp_lifecycle::LifecycleNode::SharedPtr & nh,
+    const rclcpp_lifecycle::LifecycleNode::WeakPtr & parent,


Passing shared_ptrs by reference makes sense (to avoid the overhead of incrementing and then decrementing the reference count). For a weak_ptr though, it doesn't have the same overhead - although the multiple copy/initialization argument does seem to make since for this use case.

mikeferguson · 2020-08-18T00:36:13Z

nav2_bt_navigator/include/nav2_bt_navigator/ros_topic_logger.hpp

@@ -38,7 +38,8 @@ class RosTopicLogger : public BT::StatusChangeLogger
  void flush() override;

 protected:
-  rclcpp::Node::SharedPtr ros_node_;
+  rclcpp::Clock::SharedPtr clock_;
+  rclcpp::Logger logger_{rclcpp::get_logger("bt_navigator")};


it might be worth noting on these that the names won't actually be used (right? cause these get overwritten in the constructor once we have the SharedPtr?). I could see someone getting confused if they expect the logger to have this name but instead it has the name of whatever the node has been named at runtime.

I think the idea here was to default the logger object to a reasonable name in case the logger object isn't overridden by a user since a lot of the places that use the logger object are plugin interfaces that could be further implemented by an external user.

I would agree with @mikeferguson, if we were going to set them, then I think this is the way to do it, but I think we should ensure that they're always set properly from the node. For the case of new plugins, they'll be given a new WeakPtr for them to own and they'll need to store their own logger_ to use. For everything in the codebase itself, we should ensure that its always properly set so that it respects remaps.

This is a nice safety mechanism for the specific nodes where that mistake may be possible (costmap_2d comes to mind). I'm not sure that is possible in other places like this instance. We "own" BT navigator's node and logger object, there's no plugin coming along to not properly initialize it

nav2_costmap_2d/include/nav2_costmap_2d/layer.hpp

nav2_costmap_2d/plugins/static_layer.cpp

mikeferguson · 2020-08-18T00:52:16Z

nav2_recoveries/include/nav2_recoveries/recovery.hpp

-      [&]() {RCLCPP_INFO(node_->get_logger(), "%s running...", recovery_name_.c_str());});
+    {
+      auto node = node_.lock();
+      auto timer = node->create_wall_timer(


should check node before dereferencing

nav2_recoveries/include/nav2_recoveries/recovery.hpp

nav2_navfn_planner/include/nav2_navfn_planner/navfn_planner.hpp

nav2_dwb_controller/dwb_critics/src/twirling.cpp

nav2_dwb_controller/dwb_core/src/publisher.cpp

naiveHobo · 2020-08-24T15:10:46Z

@SteveMacenski @mikeferguson ready for review!

SteveMacenski

Just need the OK from Fergs too

mikeferguson · 2020-08-24T22:43:05Z

Just need the OK from Fergs too

I'll review later tonight

* Fix memory leak in nav2_recoveries * Fix recovery server memory leak (better interface) * Fix costmap2d memory leak * Fix nav2_navfn_planner memory leak * Fix planner server and navfn planner memory leak * Make all rclcpp::Node::SharedPtr argument passing const * Fix controller server and DWB plugins memory leak * Minor fixes * Fix formatting errors * Change all plugin interfaces to use weak_ptr intead of shared_ptr to parent rclcpp::Node * Convert all SharedPtr to WeakPtr * Check shared_ptr after lock and before dereferencing

This reverts commit 681ccfa.

* Fix memory leak (#1900) * Fix memory leak in nav2_recoveries * Fix recovery server memory leak (better interface) * Fix costmap2d memory leak * Fix nav2_navfn_planner memory leak * Fix planner server and navfn planner memory leak * Make all rclcpp::Node::SharedPtr argument passing const * Fix controller server and DWB plugins memory leak * Minor fixes * Fix formatting errors * Change all plugin interfaces to use weak_ptr intead of shared_ptr to parent rclcpp::Node * Convert all SharedPtr to WeakPtr * Check shared_ptr after lock and before dereferencing * Smac/Hybrid-A* planner (#2021) * adding smac_planner to navigation2 metapackage * adding params to metapackage * update config files * adding navfn benchmark testing * updates to costmap_2d for flexility * update planner API for new changes * adding ompl to underlay because ros2 master doesn't contain the rosdep key * patching templated footprint collision checker * fix typo * updating readme config file * Analytic expansion (#43) * Use OMPL to generate heuristics The calculation is run at every planning cycle. It does not seem to slow down the planner - the calculation time seems to be quick enough that the improvement in graph expansion accounts for it. * Use OMPL to calculate analytic solution when near goal * Make angles multiples of the bin size to stop looping behaviour * Uncrustify * Use faster std::sqrt function * Fix analytic path so that the collision checker has coordinates to check! * Pre-allocate variables in analytic path expansion * Rename typedef to NodeGetter to more accurately describe function * Use distance rather than heuristic to determine when to perform analytic expansion Also force the analytic expansion to run on first iteration in case path is trivial. * Move the check for motion model into the main A* loop * Add copyright notices * Remove comment about relaxing node match tolerances The analytic expansion removes the need for this. * Correctly reset node coordinates when aborting from analytic expansion * Move analytic expansion logic to separate function * Uncrustify * Remove unneeded call to get goal coordinates * Fix the calculation of intervals in the analytic path Reserve the number of candidate nodes we are expecting. Base calculations on intervals rather than points - makes distances between nodes work properly. * Rescale heuristic so that analytic expansions are based on distance * Repeatedly split analytic path in half when checking for collision * Add parameter to control rate of analytic expansion attempts * Uncrustify * Fix incorrect type in templated function * Cpplint * Revert "Repeatedly split analytic path in half when checking for collision" This reverts commit 94d9ee0. There was a marginal speed gain (perhaps!) and the splitting approach made the code harder to understand and maintain. * Uncrustify * Add doxygen comments * Add parameter description for analytic expansion ratio * Set lower limit of 2 on number of iterations between analytic expansions * Reduce expected number of iterations because of analytic completion * Refactor analytic expansion ratio calcs to make logic easier to understand * add readme color * fix linting * ceil from floor (and speed up) * a few updates * fix smac tests * fixing smoother test * remove cost check - to be readded at another time * working last test from debug issues * Update README.md * Update README.md * adding getUseRadius API doxygen Co-authored-by: James Ward <[email protected]> * Adding additional SmacPlanner tests (#2036) * adding some more tests to smac_planner * addtl smac tests * remove unused functions * adding additional constants and smoothers tests (#2038) * Revert "Fix memory leak (#1900)" This reverts commit 681ccfa. * Changed WeakPtr to SharedPtr for compatibility with Foxy Co-authored-by: Sarthak Mittal <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Steve Macenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: James Ward <[email protected]>

* Fix memory leak in nav2_recoveries * Fix recovery server memory leak (better interface) * Fix costmap2d memory leak * Fix nav2_navfn_planner memory leak * Fix planner server and navfn planner memory leak * Make all rclcpp::Node::SharedPtr argument passing const * Fix controller server and DWB plugins memory leak * Minor fixes * Fix formatting errors * Change all plugin interfaces to use weak_ptr intead of shared_ptr to parent rclcpp::Node * Convert all SharedPtr to WeakPtr * Check shared_ptr after lock and before dereferencing

SteveMacenski reviewed Jul 31, 2020

View reviewed changes

naiveHobo force-pushed the memory-leak branch from 5a3c291 to 72c41b7 Compare August 11, 2020 00:13

naiveHobo marked this pull request as ready for review August 11, 2020 00:57

naiveHobo requested a review from SteveMacenski August 11, 2020 00:58

SteveMacenski changed the base branch from master to main August 12, 2020 21:33

SteveMacenski requested changes Aug 14, 2020

View reviewed changes

naiveHobo added 7 commits August 15, 2020 01:40

Fix memory leak in nav2_recoveries

b56b78f

Fix recovery server memory leak (better interface)

cc56e2a

Fix costmap2d memory leak

08a598d

Fix nav2_navfn_planner memory leak

b990bc9

Fix planner server and navfn planner memory leak

bfdf4e9

Make all rclcpp::Node::SharedPtr argument passing const

151bc6f

Fix controller server and DWB plugins memory leak

4e888b3

naiveHobo added 3 commits August 15, 2020 01:40

Minor fixes

5d23e33

Fix formatting errors

aeae2cc

Change all plugin interfaces to use weak_ptr intead of shared_ptr to …

8942273

…parent rclcpp::Node

naiveHobo force-pushed the memory-leak branch from 68c65ab to 8942273 Compare August 14, 2020 20:10

Convert all SharedPtr to WeakPtr

0722a30

SteveMacenski reviewed Aug 17, 2020

View reviewed changes

mikeferguson reviewed Aug 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

Check shared_ptr after lock and before dereferencing

45775b3

SteveMacenski approved these changes Aug 24, 2020

View reviewed changes

mikeferguson approved these changes Aug 25, 2020

View reviewed changes

SteveMacenski merged commit f237751 into ros-navigation:main Aug 25, 2020

naiveHobo deleted the memory-leak branch August 25, 2020 01:09

naiveHobo mentioned this pull request Oct 17, 2020

Fix SmacPlanner memory leaks and costmap downsampler test #2050

Merged

ryan-sandzimier mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2020

Foxy sync smac planner #2071

Merged

ryan-sandzimier added a commit to ryan-sandzimier/navigation2 that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2020

Revert "Fix memory leak (ros-navigation#1900)"

fba6683

This reverts commit 681ccfa.

naiveHobo mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2021

Add nav2_behavior_tree::BtActionServer #2010

Merged

Fix memory leak #1900

Fix memory leak #1900

Conversation

naiveHobo commented Jul 31, 2020 • edited Loading

Basic Info

Description of contribution in a few bullet points

Future work that may be required in bullet points

naiveHobo commented Jul 31, 2020

SteveMacenski commented Jul 31, 2020

SteveMacenski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

naiveHobo commented Jul 31, 2020 • edited Loading

SteveMacenski commented Jul 31, 2020

naiveHobo commented Aug 11, 2020 • edited Loading

SteveMacenski commented Aug 11, 2020 • edited Loading

naiveHobo commented Aug 11, 2020 • edited Loading

SteveMacenski commented Aug 11, 2020 • edited Loading

wjwwood commented Aug 11, 2020

SteveMacenski commented Aug 12, 2020 • edited Loading

naiveHobo commented Aug 13, 2020

SteveMacenski commented Aug 13, 2020 • edited Loading

naiveHobo commented Aug 13, 2020

SteveMacenski commented Aug 13, 2020

naiveHobo commented Aug 14, 2020

SteveMacenski commented Aug 14, 2020

ruffsl commented Aug 14, 2020 • edited Loading

SteveMacenski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SteveMacenski commented Aug 14, 2020

naiveHobo commented Aug 14, 2020

SteveMacenski commented Aug 14, 2020 • edited Loading

codecov bot commented Aug 14, 2020 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

naiveHobo commented Aug 14, 2020

SteveMacenski commented Aug 17, 2020

naiveHobo commented Aug 17, 2020

SteveMacenski left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikeferguson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

naiveHobo commented Aug 24, 2020

SteveMacenski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikeferguson commented Aug 24, 2020

naiveHobo commented Jul 31, 2020 •

edited

Loading

naiveHobo commented Jul 31, 2020 •

edited

Loading

naiveHobo commented Aug 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading

SteveMacenski commented Aug 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading

naiveHobo commented Aug 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading

SteveMacenski commented Aug 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading

SteveMacenski commented Aug 12, 2020 •

edited

Loading

SteveMacenski commented Aug 13, 2020 •

edited

Loading

ruffsl commented Aug 14, 2020 •

edited

Loading

SteveMacenski commented Aug 14, 2020 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Aug 14, 2020 •

edited

Loading

SteveMacenski left a comment •

edited

Loading