Date:	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:17:03 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Palfrader <weasel@...ian.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, debian-admin@...ts.debian.org,
	team@...urity.debian.org, libpam-modules@...kages.debian.org,
	Adam Tkac <vonsch@...il.com>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.28, rlimits, performance and debian etch

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:52:19 +0100
Peter Palfrader <weasel@...ian.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I spent several hours trying to get to the bottom of a serious
> performance issue that appeared on one of our servers after upgrading to
> 2.6.28.  In the end it's what could be considered a userspace bug that
> was triggered by a change in 2.6.28.  Since this might also affect other
> people I figured I'd at least document what I found here, and maybe we
> can even do something about it:
> 
> 
> So, I upgraded some of debian.org's machines to 2.6.28.1 and immediately
> the team maintaining our ftp archive complained that one of their
> scripts that previously ran in a few minutes still hadn't even come
> close to being done after an hour or so.  Downgrading to 2.6.27 fixed
> that.
> 
> Turns out that script is forking a lot and something in it or python or
> whereever closes all the file descriptors it doesn't want to pass on.
> That is, it starts at zero and goes up to ulimit -n/RLIMIT_NOFILE and
> closes them all with a few exceptions.
> 
> Turns out that takes a long time when your limit -n is now 2^20 (1048576).
> 
> With 2.6.27.* the ulimit -n was the standard 1024, but with 2.6.28 it is
> now a thousand times that.
> 
> 2.6.28 included a patch titled "rlimit: permit setting RLIMIT_NOFILE to
> RLIM_INFINITY" (0c2d64fb6cae9aae480f6a46cfe79f8d7d48b59f)[1] that
> allows, as the title implies, to set the limit for number of files to
> infinity.
> 
> Closer investigation showed that the broken default ulimit did not apply
> to "system" processes (like stuff started from init).  In the end I
> could establish that all processes that passed through pam_limit at one
> point had the bad resource limit.
> 
> Apparently the pam library in Debian etch (4.0) initializes the limits
> to some default values when it doesn't have any settings in limit.conf
> to override them.  Turns out that for nofiles this is RLIM_INFINITY.
> Commenting out "case RLIMIT_NOFILE" in pam_limit.c:267 of our pam
> package version 0.79-5 fixes that - tho I'm not sure what side effects
> that has.
> 
> Debian lenny (the upcoming 5.0 version) doesn't have this issue as it
> uses a different pam (version).
> 
> 
> I'm a bit unsure where to go from here.  Maybe the pam library in etch
> should be fixed.  Maybe the patch should be reverted (but then it may be
> more correct now and that's what the changelog entry suggests).
> As a stopgap measure I could also just define nofile in limits.conf.
> 
> Thanks for listening.  Also thanks to Rik and Nocholas who helped track
> some of this down.
> 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 1. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=0c2d64fb6cae9aae480f6a46cfe79f8d7d48b59f
>    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=0c2d64fb6cae9aae480f6a46cfe79f8d7d48b59f

Ho hum, thanks.

Well, I think we just revert it for now.  We can bring it back later
if someone is thus inclined.  Along with some sort of opt-in control,
perhaps in /proc.  Which defaults to "off".



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists