Re: [PATCH] bonding: added 802.3ad round-robin hashing policy for single TCP session balancing

[Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>]

Oleg V. Ukhno <olegu@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

>On 01/29/2011 05:28 AM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> Oleg V. Ukhno<olegu@yandex-team.ru>  wrote:
>>
>> 	I've thought about this whole thing, and here's what I view as
>> the proper way to do this.
>>
>> 	In my mind, this proposal is two separate pieces:
>>
>> 	First, a piece to make round-robin a selectable hash for
>> xmit_hash_policy.  The documentation for this should follow the pattern
>> of the "layer3+4" hash policy, in particular noting that the new
>> algorithm violates the 802.3ad standard in exciting ways, will result in
>> out of order delivery, and that other 802.3ad implementations may or may
>> not tolerate this.
>>
>> 	Second, a piece to make certain transmitted packets use the
>> source MAC of the sending slave instead of the bond's MAC.  This should
>> be a separate option from the round-robin hash policy.  I'd call it
>> something like "mac_select" with two values: "default" (what we do now)
>> and "slave_src_mac" to use the slave's real MAC for certain types of
>> traffic (I'm open to better names; that's just what I came up with while
>> writing this).  I believe that "certain types" means "everything but
>> ARP," but might be "only IP and IPv6."  Structuring the option in this
>> manner leaves the option open for additional selections in the future,
>> which a simple "on/off" option wouldn't.  This option should probably
>> only affect a subset of modes; I'm thinking anything except balance-tlb
>> or -alb (because they do funky MAC things already) and active-backup (it
>> doesn't balance traffic, and already uses fail_over_mac to control
>> this).  I think this option also needs a whole new section down in the
>> bottom explaining how to exploit it (the "pick special MACs on slaves to
>> trick switch hash" business).
>>
>> 	Comments?
>>
>> 	-J
>>
>Jay,
>As for me splitting my initial proposal into two logically diffent pieces
>is ok, this will provide more flexible configuration.
>Do I understand correctly, that after I rewrite  patch in splitted form,
>as you described above, and enhance documentation it will be /can be
>applied to kernel?

	Yes, although the patches may have to go through a few
revisions.


>Then what should I do: rewrite patch and resubmit it as a new one?

	Yes.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com