From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3091F463; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 21:16:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 21:16:20 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: meta@public-inbox.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] leak workarounds for Perl 5.16 on CentOS/RHEL 7 Message-ID: <20190926211620.GB11146@dcvr> References: <20190926015038.29770-1-e@80x24.org> <20190926123606.GA10467@chatter.i7.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190926123606.GA10467@chatter.i7.local> List-Id: Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:50:36AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > After many hours of reviewing our code in PublicInbox::Qspawn, > > PublicInbox::GitHTTPBackend, and PublicInbox::HTTP and finding > > nothing but cleanups and documentation improvements; it seems > > the leaks affecting lore is down to bugs in Perl 5.16.3. > > > > After removing the warning for Deflater being missing in > > d883d4a93b23be134038e28f421eafca70c3d838 > > ("httpd: get rid of Deflater warning"), I missed that my > > own CentOS 7 VM was missing that module so was unable to > > reproduce the FD leaks :x > > > > The first patch is a straightforward workaround that I was > > able to test without Plack::Middleware::Deflater being installed. > > > > The second patch stops loading Deflater in httpd on Perls > > earlier than 5.18. (But I haven't built or tested 5.18 myself). > > Enabling gzip in varnish will be needed for 5.16 users. > > Yay, I can confirm that the latest master fixes all the FD leaks that have > been plaguing lore.kernel.org for the past few weeks. The number of pipes is > stable and there are no (deleted) tempfiles showing up. Thanks so much for > this! Good to know! Also, how's memory use? It ought to be stable if Perl is doing the right thing; but I haven't tested all the endpoints thoroughly on 5.16.3 (especially the mbox.gz ones) > Can you elaborate on gzip+varnish changes? I'm assuming it's something as > simple as: > > @@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ > } else { > /* short TTL for up-to-dateness, our PSGI is not that slow */ > set beresp.ttl = 10s; > + /* Compress text responses on CentOS7 */ > + if (beresp.http.content-type ~ "text") { > + set beresp.do_gzip = true; > + } *shrug* Whatever the varnish docs says :) I still prefer to do gzip in the Perl process to minimize IPC overhead (and to eventually make things easier-to-deploy w/o needing Varnish). I think I can add gzip support to WwwStream and WwwAtomStream pretty easily, and we're already using a custom gzipper for the mboxrd endpoints.