[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKdSkDW5Q6cK+1XGsA5SGMkdMOMLm1uy-HaMLoB+-K4CLchhww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:28:07 +0300
From: Veli-Matti Lintu <veli-matti.lintu@...nsys.fi>
To: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bonding: fix 802.3ad aggregator reselection
2016-07-08 15:22 GMT+03:00 Veli-Matti Lintu <veli-matti.lintu@...nsys.fi>:
> 2016-07-08 4:48 GMT+03:00 Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>:
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
>> index edc70ffad660..2da5be91226e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
>> @@ -1713,18 +1713,12 @@ static void ad_agg_selection_logic(struct aggregator *agg,
>> *update_slave_arr = true;
>> }
>>
>> - /* if the selected aggregator is of join individuals
>> - * (partner_system is NULL), enable their ports
>> - */
>> active = __get_active_agg(origin);
>>
>> if (active) {
>> - if (!__agg_has_partner(active)) {
>> - for (port = active->lag_ports; port;
>> - port = port->next_port_in_aggregator) {
>> - __enable_port(port);
>> - }
>> - }
>> + for (port = active->lag_ports; port;
>> + port = port->next_port_in_aggregator)
>> + __enable_port(port);
>> }
>>
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>
>>
>> Rather than adding a new loop as your original patch did, this
>> one repurposes the existing loop for individual links and does the
>> enable for all cases.
>>
>> I think this may still need a check for the port state in there,
>> as ports in the aggregator may be link up but still not suitable for
>> TX/RX if the LACP negotiation doesn't put the port into COLL_DIST state.
>>
>> Enabling a port that is already enabled is harmless, and if the
>> port is link down, the enable will do nothing, so I think this should
>> resolve things.
>
> I can test any patches with additional checks, but this change seems
> to fix it for us.
Do you think something else is needed is addition to this? This has
been working on my servers now for some time without problems. I
tested this also against mainline 4.8-rc1 that needed it for bonding
to work properly with the previous test case.
Veli-Matti
Powered by blists - more mailing lists