From: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>
To: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@genband.com>,
Jiri Bohac <jbohac@suse.cz>, Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bonding: time limits too tight in bond_ab_arp_inspect
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:34:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201208230934.18652.ptesarik@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <24655.1345660922@death.nxdomain>
Dne St 22. srpna 2012 20:42:02 Jay Vosburgh napsal(a):
> Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@genband.com> wrote:
> >On 08/22/2012 11:45 AM, Jiri Bohac wrote:
> >> This code is run from bond_activebackup_arp_mon() about
> >> delta_in_ticks jiffies after the previous ARP probe has been
> >> sent. If the delayed work gets executed exactly in delta_in_ticks
> >> jiffies, there is a chance the slave will be brought up. If the
> >> delayed work runs one jiffy later, the slave will stay down.
>
> Presumably the ARP reply is coming back in less than one jiffy,
> then, so the slave_last_rx() value is the same jiffy as when the
> _inspect was previously called?
Yes, that's what happens. Keep in mind that the backup slave validates the
original ARP query, so on a fast network, you get it more or less immediately
(for my case, I can see a delay of ~70us).
Anyway, why do we have to wait until the next ARP send? Couldn't we simply
kick the work queue when we receive a valid packet on a down interface?
Petr Tesarik
SUSE Linux
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-23 7:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-22 17:45 bonding: time limits too tight in bond_ab_arp_inspect Jiri Bohac
2012-08-22 17:54 ` Chris Friesen
2012-08-22 18:42 ` Jay Vosburgh
2012-08-22 18:58 ` Chris Friesen
2012-08-23 7:34 ` Petr Tesarik [this message]
2012-08-30 22:02 ` [PATCH] bonding: add some slack to arp monitoring time limits Jiri Bohac
2012-08-31 20:37 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201208230934.18652.ptesarik@suse.cz \
--to=ptesarik@suse.cz \
--cc=andy@greyhouse.net \
--cc=chris.friesen@genband.com \
--cc=fubar@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jbohac@suse.cz \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.