From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julian Anastasov Subject: Re: test Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:26:27 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: References: <20091104202716.GE14821@hostway.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Wensong Zhang To: Simon Kirby Return-path: Received: from ja.ssi.bg ([217.79.71.194]:56290 "EHLO u.domain.uli" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752396AbZKEJ0R (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:26:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091104202716.GE14821@hostway.ca> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Simon Kirby wrote: > Hello! > > I was noticing a significant amount of what seems/seemed to be > destination lists with multiple entries with the lblcr LVS algorithm. > While tracking it down, I think I stumbled over a mistake. In > ip_vs_lblcr_full_check(), it appears the time check logic is reversed: > > for (i=0, j=tbl->rover; i j = (j + 1) & IP_VS_LBLCR_TAB_MASK; > > write_lock(&svc->sched_lock); > list_for_each_entry_safe(en, nxt, &tbl->bucket[j], list) { If 'time to expire' is after current time then continue, i.e. current time didn't reached the limit, seems correct, no need to patch. For better reading and to match ip_vs_lblcr_check_expire() it can be converted to: if (time_before(now, en->lastuse+sysctl_ip_vs_lblcr_expiration)) continue; > if (time_after(en->lastuse+sysctl_ip_vs_lblcr_expiration, > now)) > continue; > > ip_vs_lblcr_free(en); > atomic_dec(&tbl->entries); > } > write_unlock(&svc->sched_lock); > } > > Shouldn't this be "time_before"? It seems that it currently nukes all > recently-used entries every time this function is called, which seems to > be every 30 minutes, rather than removing the not-recently-used ones. > > If my reading is correct, this patch should fix it. Am I missing > something? include/linux/jiffies.h: time_after(a,b) returns true if the time a is after time b. #define time_before(a,b) time_after(b,a) Regards -- Julian Anastasov