From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was
 on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 13:52:24 -0200
Message-ID: <54AD5638.8060201@redhat.com>
References: <f285101382023a28aaaf35dbf1433e09964e979d.1418048197.git.mleitner@redhat.com> <alpine.LFD.2.11.1412092248390.2374@ja.home.ssi.bg> <54883DCA.7050906@redhat.com> <54887B3C.2000709@redhat.com> <alpine.LFD.2.11.1412102217500.4043@ja.home.ssi.bg> <548991AF.1050502@redhat.com> <alpine.LFD.2.11.1412112207350.2098@ja.home.ssi.bg> <548AD85D.1070109@redhat.com> <54A301AD.8060002@redhat.com> <alpine.LFD.2.11.1501052326290.11288@ja.home.ssi.bg> <54ABD124.9020504@redhat.com> <alpine.LFD.2.11.1501062255390.6550@ja.home.ssi.bg>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <lvs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1501062255390.6550@ja.home.ssi.bg>
Sender: lvs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <lvs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
Cc: lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, hannes@redhat.com, jbrouer@redhat.com

Hi,

On 06-01-2015 19:06, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> 	Hello,
>
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2015, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>
>>> 	I guess, we here try to avoid old sync message to
>>> expire new connection. The problem is that UDP conns and
>>> templates are always IP_VS_CONN_F_INACTIVE, may be a TCP+SCTP
>>> protocol check is needed.
>>
>> Yes, that's the idea, avoiding the old sync messages. I don't think we need a
>> check for protocol here because the outer if() (the one that checks daddr and
>> dport) wouldn't happen for UDP, right? Unless it was really recycled.. But
>> yeah I missed the template case. Perhaps we can just move this block together
>> with the previous if(!).
>
> 	OK, just make sure patch has short lines (80):
>
> # scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict /tmp/file.patch

Sure thing

>>
>>          if (!(flags & IP_VS_CONN_F_TEMPLATE)) {
>>                  cp = ip_vs_conn_in_get(param);
>>                  if (cp && ((cp->dport != dport) ||
>>                             !ip_vs_addr_equal(cp->daf, &cp->daddr, daddr))) {
>>                          if (!(flags & IP_VS_CONN_F_INACTIVE)) {
>>                                  ip_vs_conn_expire_now(cp);
>>                                  __ip_vs_conn_put(cp);
>>                                  cp = NULL;
>>                          } else {
>
> 	I assume we will not stop here sync for some connection that
> was normally expired in master but was delayed in backup. TCP sync
> starts for EST state, so I think it will hit the above case.

You mean that we could end up ignoring a sync msg that we shouldn't ignore?

Cheers,
Marcelo