Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:58:54 -0400 | From | Jarod Wilson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] net/bonding: send arp in interval if no active slave |
| |
Jarod Wilson wrote: > From: Uwe Koziolek<uwe.koziolek@redknee.com> > > With some very finicky switch hardware, active backup bonding can get into > a situation where we play ping-pong between interfaces, trying to get one > to come up as the active slave. There seems to be an issue with the > switch's arp replies either taking too long, or simply getting lost, so we > wind up unable to get any interface up and active. Sometimes, the issue > sorts itself out after a while, sometimes it doesn't. > > Testing with num_grat_arp has proven fruitless, but sending an additional > arp on curr_arp_slave if we're still in the arp_interval timeslice in > bond_ab_arp_probe(), has shown to produce 100% reliability in testing with > this hardware combination. > > [jarod: manufacturing of changelog, addition of modparam gating] > CC: Jay Vosburgh<jay.vosburgh@canonical.com> > CC: Andy Gospodarek<gospo@cumulusnetworks.com> > CC: Veaceslav Falico<vfalico@gmail.com> > CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Uwe Koziolek<uwe.koziolek@redknee.com> > Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson<jarod@redhat.com> > --- > v2: add code comment as to why change is needed > v3: fix wrapping of comments > v4: [jarod] add module parameter gating of code addition > > drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/net/bonding.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > index 90f2615..72ab512 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > @@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ static int miimon; > static int updelay; > static int downdelay; > static int use_carrier = 1; > +static int arp_slow_switch; > static char *mode; > static char *primary; > static char *primary_reselect; > @@ -133,6 +134,10 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(downdelay, "Delay before considering link down, " > module_param(use_carrier, int, 0); > MODULE_PARM_DESC(use_carrier, "Use netif_carrier_ok (vs MII ioctls) in miimon; " > "0 for off, 1 for on (default)"); > +module_param(arp_slow_switch, int, 0); > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(arp_slow_switch, "Do extra arp checks for switches with arp " > + "caches that are slow to update; " > + "0 for off (default), 1 for on"); > module_param(mode, charp, 0); > MODULE_PARM_DESC(mode, "Mode of operation; 0 for balance-rr, " > "1 for active-backup, 2 for balance-xor, " > @@ -2793,6 +2798,18 @@ static bool bond_ab_arp_probe(struct bonding *bond) > return should_notify_rtnl; > } > > + /* Sometimes the forwarding tables of the switches are not update > + * fast enough, so 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 (arp_slow_switch &&
This here should actually be bond->params.arp_slow_switch, but I'd like to hear first if a module parameter gating this change is even a remotely acceptable idea. It'd keep the logic identical in the default case though, and still allow for people like Uwe that need it to deploy the work-around.
Though I'm slightly curious if this problem does NOT manifest by simply setting a larger arp_interval. Early on, I thought I'd heard that other intervals had been tried with the same results, but a comment in this thread suggested maybe only 500 had been tried.
-- Jarod Wilson jarod@redhat.com
| |