[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zn6Ily5OnRnQvcNo@Laptop-X1>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 17:55:35 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
Cc: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Amit Cohen <amcohen@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 net-next] bonding: 3ad: send ifinfo notify when mux
state changed
Hi Nikolay,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:22:25AM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > Actually I was talking about:
> > /sys/class/net/<bond port>/bonding_slave/ad_actor_oper_port_state
> > /sys/class/net/<bond port>/bonding_slave/ad_partner_oper_port_state
> > etc
> >
> > Wouldn't these work for you?
> >
>
> But it gets much more complicated, I guess it will be easier to read the
> proc bond file with all the LACP information. That is under RCU only as
> well.
Good question. The monitor application want a more elegant/general way
to deal with the LACP state and do other network reconfigurations.
Here is the requirement I got from customer.
1) As a server administrator, I want ip monitor to show state change events
related to LACP bonds so that I can react quickly to network reconfigurations.
2) As a network monitoring application developer, I want my application to be
notified about LACP bond operational state changes without having to
poll /proc/net/bonding/<bond> and parse its output so that it can trigger
predefined failover remediation policies.
3) As a server administrator, I want my LACP bond monitoring application to
receive a Netlink-based notification whenever the number of member
interfaces is reduced so that the operations support system can provision
a member interface replacement.
What I understand is the user/admin need to know the latest stable state so
they can do some other network configuration based on the status. Losing
a middle state notification during fast changes is acceptable.
> Well, you mentioned administrators want to see the state changes, please
> better clarify the exact end goal. Note that technically may even not be
> the last state as the state change itself happens in parallel (different
> locks) and any update could be delayed depending on rtnl availability
> and workqueue re-scheduling. But sure, they will get some update at some point. :)
Would you please help explain why we may not get the latest state? From what
I understand:
1) State A -> B, queue notify
rtnl_trylock, fail, queue again
2) State B -> C, queue notify
rtnl_trylock, success, post current state C
3) State C -> D, queue notify
rtnl_trylock, fail, queue again
4) State D -> A, queue notify
rtnl_trylock, fail, queue again
rtnl_trylock, fail, queue again
rtnl_trylock, success, post current state A
So how could the step 3) state send but step 4) state not send?
BTW, in my code, I should set the should_notify_lacp = 0 first before sending
ifinfo message. So that even the should_notify_lacp = 1 in ad_mux_machine()
is over written here, it still send the latest status.
> +
> + if (slave->should_notify_lacp) {
> + slave->should_notify_lacp = 0;
> + rtmsg_ifinfo(RTM_NEWLINK, slave->dev, 0, GFP_KERNEL, 0, NULL);
> + }
The side effect is that we may send 2 same latest lacp status(the
should_notify_lacp is over written to 1 and queue again), which should
be OK.
Thanks
Hangbin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists