Re: bonding reports interface up with 0 Mbps

[Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>]

Tantilov, Emil S <emil.s.tantilov@intel.com> wrote:

>We are seeing an occasional issue where the bonding driver may report interface up with 0 Mbps:
>bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth0, 0 Mbps full duplex
>
>So far in all the failed traces I have collected this happens on NETDEV_CHANGELOWERSTATE event:
>
><...>-20533 [000] .... 81811.041241: ixgbe_service_task: eth1: NIC Link is Up 10 Gbps, Flow Control: RX/TX
><...>-20533 [000] .... 81811.041257: ixgbe_check_vf_rate_limit <-ixgbe_service_task
><...>-20533 [000] .... 81811.041272: ixgbe_ping_all_vfs <-ixgbe_service_task
>kworker/u48:0-7503  [010] .... 81811.041345: ixgbe_get_stats64 <-dev_get_stats
>kworker/u48:0-7503  [010] .... 81811.041393: bond_netdev_event: eth1: event: 1b
>kworker/u48:0-7503  [010] .... 81811.041394: bond_netdev_event: eth1: IFF_SLAVE
>kworker/u48:0-7503  [010] .... 81811.041395: bond_netdev_event: eth1: slave->speed = ffffffff
><...>-20533 [000] .... 81811.041407: ixgbe_ptp_overflow_check <-ixgbe_service_task
>kworker/u48:0-7503  [010] .... 81811.041407: bond_mii_monitor: bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth1, 0 Mbps full duplex

	From looking at the code that prints this, the "full" duplex is
probably actually DUPLEX_UNKNOWN, but the netdev_info uses the
expression slave->duplex ? "full" : "half", so DUPLEX_UNKNOWN at 0xff
would print "full."

	This is what ixgbe_get_settings returns for speed and duplex if
it is called when carrier is off.

>As a proof of concept I added NETDEV_CHANGELOWERSTATE in bond_slave_netdev_event() along with NETDEV_UP/CHANGE:
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>index 56b5605..a9dac4c 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>@@ -3014,6 +3014,7 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event,
> 		break;
> 	case NETDEV_UP:
> 	case NETDEV_CHANGE:
>+	case NETDEV_CHANGELOWERSTATE:
> 		bond_update_speed_duplex(slave);
> 		if (BOND_MODE(bond) == BOND_MODE_8023AD)
> 			bond_3ad_adapter_speed_duplex_changed(slave);
>
>With this change I have not seen 0 Mbps reported by the bonding driver (around 12 hour test up to this point
>vs. 2-3 hours otherwise). Although I suppose it could also be some sort of race/timing issue with bond_mii_monitor().

	This change as a fix seems kind of odd, since CHANGELOWERSTATE
is generated by bonding itself.  Perhaps the net effect is to add a
delay and then update the speed and duplex, masking the actual problem.

	Emil, if I recall correctly, the test patch I send that uses the
notifiers directly instead of miimon (specify miimon=0 and have bonding
respond to the notifiers) handled everything properly, right?  If so I
can split that up and submit it properly; it seems more like a feature
than a straightforward bug fix, so I'm not sure it's appropriate for
net.

	As a possibly less complex alternative for the miimon > 0 case,
could you try the following:

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index 56b560558884..ac8921e65f26 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -2120,6 +2120,7 @@ static void bond_miimon_commit(struct bonding *bond)
 {
 	struct list_head *iter;
 	struct slave *slave, *primary;
+	int link_state;
 
 	bond_for_each_slave(bond, slave, iter) {
 		switch (slave->new_link) {
@@ -2127,6 +2128,10 @@ static void bond_miimon_commit(struct bonding *bond)
 			continue;
 
 		case BOND_LINK_UP:
+			link_state = bond_check_dev_link(bond, slave->dev, 0);
+			if (!link_state)
+				continue;
+			bond_update_speed_duplex(slave);
 			bond_set_slave_link_state(slave, BOND_LINK_UP,
 						  BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_NOW);
 			slave->last_link_up = jiffies;


	This will make bonding recheck the link state and update the
speed and duplex after it acquires RTNL to commit a link change.  This
probably still has a race, since the change of carrier state in the
device is not mutexed by anything bonding can acquire (so it can always
change as soon as it's checked).

	Thanks,

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com