From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarod Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/bonding: send arp in interval if no active slave Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:31:35 -0400 Message-ID: <56094137.9030206@redhat.com> References: <1439828583-27325-1-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> <20150817165500.GA21512@vps.falico.eu> <55D215F7.3080905@redhat.com> <55D22E64.6020807@redknee.com> <2649.1439838866@famine> <55D2494F.3020800@redknee.com> <20150901154157.GY504@gospo.home.greyhouse.net> <55E63065.8070906@redknee.com> <31529.1441292743@famine> <55E97AC6.6030106@redknee.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andy Gospodarek , Veaceslav Falico , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Uwe Koziolek To: Jay Vosburgh Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55E97AC6.6030106@redknee.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Uwe Koziolek wrote: > Am 03.09.2015 um 17:05 schrieb Jay Vosburgh: >> Uwe Koziolek wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:41 PM +0200, Andy Gospodarek wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:51:27PM +0200, Uwe Koziolek wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:14PM +0200, Jay Vosburgh wrote: >>>>>> Uwe Koziolek wrote: ... >> I probably should have asked this in the beginning, but at what >> range of arp_interval values does the problem manifest? If it's a race >> condition with the switch update, I'd expect that only very small >> arp_interval values would be affected. >> >> Also, your proposed comment wraps past 80 columns. >> >> -J >> > Only 500 msecs arp interval is used, no other values are checked. > Wraps in patch are now removed. > > diff -up ./drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c.orig > ./drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > --- ./drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c.orig 2015-08-30 20:34:09.000000000 > +0200 > +++ ./drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c 2015-09-04 11:59:05.755897182 +0200 > @@ -2795,6 +2795,17 @@ static bool bond_ab_arp_probe(struct bon > return should_notify_rtnl; > } > > + /* sometimes the forwarding tables of the switches are not updated > + * fast enough. the first arp response after a slave change is received > + * on the wrong slave. > + * the arp requests will be retried 2 times on the same slave > + */ > + > + if (bond_time_in_interval(bond, curr_arp_slave->last_link_up, 2)) { > + bond_arp_send_all(bond, curr_arp_slave); > + return should_notify_rtnl; > + } > + > bond_set_slave_inactive_flags(curr_arp_slave, BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_LATER); > > bond_for_each_slave_rcu(bond, slave, iter) { Jay, any further issues with this patch? I know Veaceslav was concerned about it breaking the logic for link state management if there's no current active slave for 2 * arp_interval, while Andy seemed okay with it, provided there was a comment explaining. Just looking at what might have to be done next here to keep heading towards a resolution. Thanks much, -- Jarod Wilson jarod@redhat.com