Message-ID: <03b61877-053b-2f0e-dc35-8fe31cc90c08@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Sep 2017 17:30:38 +0300
From:   Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:     Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Reinis Rozitis <r@...e.lv>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: bonding: Fix transmit load balancing in balance-alb
 mode if specified by sysfs

On 08/09/17 17:17, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> On 08/09/17 13:10, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>>> On 08/09/17 05:06, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> On  7.09.2017 01:47, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>>>>>> Commit cbf5ecb30560 ("net: bonding: Fix transmit load balancing in
>>>>>> balance-alb mode") tried to fix transmit dynamic load balancing in
>>>>>> balance-alb mode, which wasn't working after commit 8b426dc54cf4
>>>>>> ("bonding: remove hardcoded value").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It turned out that my previous patch only fixed the case when
>>>>>> balance-alb was specified as bonding module parameter, and not when
>>>>>> balance-alb mode was set using /sys/class/net/*/bonding/mode (the most
>>>>>> common usage).  In the latter case, tlb_dynamic_lb was set up according
>>>>>> to the default mode of the bonding interface, which happens to be
>>>>>> balance-rr.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This additional patch addresses this issue by setting up tlb_dynamic_lb
>>>>>> to 1 if "mode" is set to balance-alb through the sysfs interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't add code to change tlb_balance_lb back to the default value for
>>>>>> other modes, because "mode" is usually set up only once during
>>>>>> initialization, and it's not worthwhile to change the static variable
>>>>>> bonding_defaults in bond_main.c to a global variable just for this
>>>>>> purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Commit 8b426dc54cf4 also changes the value of tlb_dynamic_lb for
>>>>>> balance-tlb mode if it is set up using the sysfs interface.  I didn't
>>>>>> change that behavior, because the value of tlb_balance_lb can be changed
>>>>>> using the sysfs interface for balance-tlb, and I didn't like changing
>>>>>> the default value back and forth for balance-tlb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for balance-alb, /sys/class/net/*/bonding/tlb_balance_lb cannot be
>>>>>> written to.  However, I think balance-alb with tlb_dynamic_lb set to 0
>>>>>> is not an intended usage, so there is little use making it writable at
>>>>>> this moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 8b426dc54cf4 ("bonding: remove hardcoded value")
>>>>>> Reported-by: Reinis Rozitis <r@...e.lv>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@...jp.nec.com>
>>>>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org  # v4.12+
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c |    3 +++
>>>>>>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe this to be the right solution, hardcoding it like this
>>>>> changes user-visible behaviour. The issue is that if someone configured
>>>>> it to be 0 in tlb mode, suddenly it will become 1 and will silently
>>>>> override their config if they switch the mode to alb. Also it robs users
>>>>> from their choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think this should be settable in ALB mode, then IMO you should
>>>>> edit tlb_dynamic_lb option's unsuppmodes and allow it to be set in ALB.
>>>>> That would also be consistent with how it's handled in TLB mode.
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't think tlb_dynamic_lb should be settable in balance-alb at
>>>> this point.  All the current commits regarding tlb_dynamic_lb are for
>>>> balance-tlb mode, so I don't think balance-alb with tlb_dynamic_lb set
>>>> to 0 is an intended usage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Going back and looking at your previous fix I'd argue that it is also
>>>>> wrong, you should've removed the mode check altogether to return the
>>>>> original behaviour where the dynamic_lb is set to 1 (enabled) by
>>>>> default and then ALB mode would've had it, of course that would've left
>>>>> the case of setting it to 0 in TLB mode and switching to ALB, but that
>>>>> is a different issue.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe balance-alb shouldn't be dependent on tlb_dynamic_lb.
>>>> tlb_dynamic_lb is referenced in the following functions.
>>>>
>>>>  + bond_do_alb_xmit()  -- Used by both balance-tlb and balance-alb
>>>>  + bond_tlb_xmit()  -- Only used by balance-tlb
>>>>  + bond_open()  -- Used by both balance-tlb and balance-alb
>>>>  + bond_check_params()  -- Used during module initialization
>>>>  + bond_fill_info()  -- Used to get/set value
>>>>  + bond_option_tlb_dynamic_lb_set()  -- Used to get/set value
>>>>  + bonding_show_tlb_dynamic_lb()  -- Used to get/set value
>>>>  + bond_is_nondyn_tlb()  -- Only referenced if balance-tlb mode
>>>>
>>>> The following untested patch adds code to make balance-alb work as if
>>>> tlb_dynamic_lb==1 for the functions which affect balance-alb mode.  It
>>>> also reverts my previous patch.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think about this approach?
>>>> ---
>>>> Kosuke TATSUKAWA  | 1st Platform Software Division
>>>>                   | NEC Solution Innovators
>>>>                   | tatsu@...jp.nec.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> Logically the approach looks good, that being said it adds unnecessary tests in
>>> the fast path, why not just something like the patch below ? That only leaves the
>>> problem if it is zeroed in TLB and switched to ALB mode, and that is a one line
>>> fix to unsuppmodes just allow it to be set for that specific case. The below
>>> returns the default behaviour before the commit in your Fixes tag.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually I'm fine with your approach, too. It will fix this regardless of the
>> value of tlb_dynamic_lb which sounds good to me for the price of a test in
>> the fast path.
> 
> If you're concerned about the additional test in the fast path, how
> about the patch below.  I've added an arguemnt to bond_do_alb_xmit()
> to handle both balance-tlb and balance-alb similary.
> 

Even better, looks great! 1 question below though.

> I'm not sure if this causes any problem if tlb_dynamic_lb is changed
> while calling bond_do_alb_xmit() in balance-tlb mode.

The option has the ifdown flag, you shouldn't be able to change it while
the bond dev is up, but even if you could I don't think it will be an issue
for the xmit.

> ---
> Kosuke TATSUKAWA  | 1st Platform Software Division
>                   | NEC Solution Innovators
>                   | tatsu@...jp.nec.com
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c  |   11 ++++++-----
>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c |    5 +++--
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
> index c02cc81..7710f20 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
> @@ -1317,7 +1317,7 @@ void bond_alb_deinitialize(struct bonding *bond)
>  }
>  
>  static int bond_do_alb_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct bonding *bond,
> -			    struct slave *tx_slave)
> +			    struct slave *tx_slave, int tlb_dynamic_lb)
>  {
>  	struct alb_bond_info *bond_info = &(BOND_ALB_INFO(bond));
>  	struct ethhdr *eth_data = eth_hdr(skb);
> @@ -1325,7 +1325,7 @@ static int bond_do_alb_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct bonding *bond,
>  	if (!tx_slave) {
>  		/* unbalanced or unassigned, send through primary */
>  		tx_slave = rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> -		if (bond->params.tlb_dynamic_lb)
> +		if (tlb_dynamic_lb)
>  			bond_info->unbalanced_load += skb->len;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -1339,7 +1339,7 @@ static int bond_do_alb_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct bonding *bond,
>  		goto out;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (tx_slave && bond->params.tlb_dynamic_lb) {
> +	if (tx_slave && tlb_dynamic_lb) {
>  		spin_lock(&bond->mode_lock);
>  		__tlb_clear_slave(bond, tx_slave, 0);
>  		spin_unlock(&bond->mode_lock);
> @@ -1386,7 +1386,8 @@ int bond_tlb_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *bond_dev)
>  			break;
>  		}
>  	}
> -	return bond_do_alb_xmit(skb, bond, tx_slave);
> +	return bond_do_alb_xmit(skb, bond, tx_slave,
> +				bond->params.tlb_dynamic_lb);
>  }
>  
>  int bond_alb_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *bond_dev)
> @@ -1483,7 +1484,7 @@ int bond_alb_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *bond_dev)
>  		tx_slave = tlb_choose_channel(bond, hash_index, skb->len);
>  	}
>  
> -	return bond_do_alb_xmit(skb, bond, tx_slave);
> +	return bond_do_alb_xmit(skb, bond, tx_slave, 1);
>  }
>  
>  void bond_alb_monitor(struct work_struct *work)
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index fc63992..bcb71e7 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -3305,7 +3305,8 @@ static int bond_open(struct net_device *bond_dev)
>  		 */
>  		if (bond_alb_initialize(bond, (BOND_MODE(bond) == BOND_MODE_ALB)))
>  			return -ENOMEM;
> -		if (bond->params.tlb_dynamic_lb)
> +		if (bond->params.tlb_dynamic_lb ||
> +		    (BOND_MODE(bond) == BOND_MODE_TLB))

mode == tlb ? shouldn't this check be for alb ?

>  			queue_delayed_work(bond->wq, &bond->alb_work, 0);
>  	}
>  
> @@ -4601,7 +4602,7 @@ static int bond_check_params(struct bond_params *params)
>  	}
>  	ad_user_port_key = valptr->value;
>  
> -	if ((bond_mode == BOND_MODE_TLB) || (bond_mode == BOND_MODE_ALB)) {
> +	if (bond_mode == BOND_MODE_TLB) {
>  		bond_opt_initstr(&newval, "default");
>  		valptr = bond_opt_parse(bond_opt_get(BOND_OPT_TLB_DYNAMIC_LB),
>  					&newval);
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists