[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120822174534.GA20260@midget.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:45:34 +0200
From: Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
To: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
Subject: bonding: time limits too tight in bond_ab_arp_inspect
Hi,
a customer reported that a bonding slave did not come back up
after setting their link down and then up again. ARP monitoring +
arp_validate were used.
Petr has tracked the problem down to the time comaprisons in
bond_ab_arp_inspect().
if (slave->link != BOND_LINK_UP) {
if (time_in_range(jiffies,
slave_last_rx(bond, slave) - delta_in_ticks,
slave_last_rx(bond, slave) + delta_in_ticks)) {
slave->new_link = BOND_LINK_UP;
commit++;
}
continue;
}
This code is run from bond_activebackup_arp_mon() about
delta_in_ticks jiffies after the previous ARP probe has been
sent. If the delayed work gets executed exactly in delta_in_ticks
jiffies, there is a chance the slave will be brought up. If the
delayed work runs one jiffy later, the slave will stay down.
With arp_validate this is more noticeable, since traffic other than the
bonding-generated ARP probes does not update the slave_last_rx timestamp.
A simple patch will fix this case.
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -3001,7 +3001,7 @@ static int bond_ab_arp_inspect(struct bo
if (slave->link != BOND_LINK_UP) {
if (time_in_range(jiffies,
slave_last_rx(bond, slave) - delta_in_ticks,
- slave_last_rx(bond, slave) + delta_in_ticks)) {
+ slave_last_rx(bond, slave) + 2 * delta_in_ticks)) {
slave->new_link = BOND_LINK_UP;
commit++;
The remaining time comparisons inside bond_ab_arp_inspect() have larger
tolerances (3*delta_in_ticks or 2*delta_in_ticks), but it still seems strange
that the precision of delayed work scheduling should steal a full
arp_interval from the time limits.
What is the intention of e.g. the "3*delta since last receive" limit?
Was this really meant to be "as little as 2*delta + 1 jiffy"?
Should they perhaps all be increased by, say, delta_in_ticks/2, to make this
less dependent on the current scheduling latencies?
Thoughts?
--
Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, SUSE CZ
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists