From: zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com>
To: "Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@intel.com>,
Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>,
Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>
Cc: "vfalico@gmail.com" <vfalico@gmail.com>,
"gospo@cumulusnetworks.com" <gospo@cumulusnetworks.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"Shteinbock, Boris (Wind River)" <boris.shteinbock@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bonding: restrict up state in 802.3ad mode
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:33:36 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <568DDC90.7030408@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87618083B2453E4A8714035B62D67992505043B1@FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com>
On 01/07/2016 10:43 AM, Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: zhuyj [mailto:zyjzyj2000@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 7:05 PM
>> To: Tantilov, Emil S; Michal Kubecek; Jay Vosburgh
>> Cc: vfalico@gmail.com; gospo@cumulusnetworks.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
>> Shteinbock, Boris (Wind River)
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bonding: restrict up state in 802.3ad mode
>>
>> On 01/06/2016 09:26 AM, Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org]
>> On
>>>> Behalf Of zhuyj
>>>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:19 AM
>>>> To: Michal Kubecek; Jay Vosburgh
>>>> Cc: vfalico@gmail.com; gospo@cumulusnetworks.com;
>> netdev@vger.kernel.org;
>>>> Shteinbock, Boris (Wind River)
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bonding: restrict up state in 802.3ad mode
>>>>
>>>> On 12/28/2015 04:43 PM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 01:57:16PM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>>>>>> <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In 802.3ad mode, the speed and duplex is needed. But in some NIC,
>>>>>>> there is a time span between NIC up state and getting speed and
>> duplex.
>>>>>>> As such, sometimes a slave in 802.3ad mode is in up state without
>>>>>>> speed and duplex. This will make bonding in 802.3ad mode can not
>>>>>>> work well.
>>>>>>> To make bonding driver be compatible with more NICs, it is
>>>>>>> necessary to restrict the up state in 802.3ad mode.
>>>>>> What device is this? It seems a bit odd that an Ethernet device
>>>>>> can be carrier up but not have the duplex and speed available.
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> In general, though, bonding expects a speed or duplex change to
>>>>>> be announced via a NETDEV_UPDATE or NETDEV_UP notifier, which would
>>>>>> propagate to the 802.3ad logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the device here is going carrier up prior to having speed or
>>>>>> duplex available, then maybe it should call netdev_state_change() when
>>>>>> the duplex and speed are available, or delay calling
>> netif_carrier_on().
>>>>> I have encountered this problem (NIC having carrier on before being
>> able
>>>>> to detect speed/duplex and driver not notifying when speed/duplex
>>>>> becomes available) with netxen cards earlier. But it was eventually
>>>>> fixed in the driver by commit 9d01412ae76f ("netxen: Fix link event
>>>>> handling.") so this example rather supports what you said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michal
>> Kubecek
>>>> Thanks a lot.
>>>> I checked the commit 9d01412ae76f ("netxen: Fix link event
>>>> handling."). The symptoms are the same with mine.
>>>>
>>>> The root cause is different. In my problem, the root cause is that LINKS
>>>> register[] can not provide link_up and link_speed at the same time.
>>>> There is a time span between link_up and link_speed.
>>> The LINK_UP and LINK_SPEED bits in the LINKS register for ixgbe HW are
>> updated
>>> simultaneously. Do you have any proof to show the delay you are referring
>> to
>>> as I am sure our HW engineers would like to know about it.
>> Sorry. I can not reproduce this problem locally. What I have is the
>> feedback from the customer.
> So you are assuming that there is a delay due to the issue you are seeing?
Sure. Before I get the further feedback from the customer, I can not
make further conclusion.
My patch is based on the feedback from the customer.
>
>> Settings for eth0:
>> Supported ports: [ TP ]
>> Supported link modes: 100baseT/Full
>> 1000baseT/Full
>> 10000baseT/Full
>> Supported pause frame use: No
>> Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
>> Advertised link modes: 100baseT/Full
>> 1000baseT/Full
>> 10000baseT/Full
>> Advertised pause frame use: No
>> Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
>> Speed: Unknown!
>> Duplex: Unknown! (255)
>> Port: Twisted Pair
>> PHYAD: 0
>> Transceiver: external
>> Auto-negotiation: on
>> MDI-X: Unknown
>> Supports Wake-on: d
>> Wake-on: d
>> Current message level: 0x00000007 (7)
>> drv probe link
>> Link detected: yes
> The speed and the link state here are reported from
> different sources:
Sure.
ixgbe_get_settings->hw->mac.ops.check_link(X540)->ixgbe_check_mac_link_generic
In this function ixgbe_check_mac_link_generic, the register IXGBE_LINKS
is checked. link_up and
link_speed is got from this register.
>
>> Link detected: yes
> Comes from a netif_carrier_ok() check. This is done via ethtool_op_get_link()
>
> Only the speed is reported through the LINKS register - that is why it is reported
> as "Unknown" - in other words link_up is false.
Sorry. I do not agree with you.
static inline bool netif_carrier_ok(const struct net_device *dev)
{
return !test_bit(__LINK_STATE_NOCARRIER, &dev->state);
}
netif_carrier_ok will check __LINK_STATE_NOCARRIER. This
__LINK_STATE_NOCARRIER is set by netif_carrier_on.
/**
* netif_carrier_on - set carrier
* @dev: network device
*
* Device has detected that carrier.
*/
void netif_carrier_on(struct net_device *dev)
{
if (test_and_clear_bit(__LINK_STATE_NOCARRIER, &dev->state)) {
if (dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNINITIALIZED)
return;
atomic_inc(&dev->carrier_changes);
linkwatch_fire_event(dev);
if (netif_running(dev))
__netdev_watchdog_up(dev);
}
}
In ixgbe driver, in ixgbe_main.c +6506, this function
ixgbe_watchdog_link_is_up runs
netif_carrier_on function.
ixgbe_watchdog_link_is_up is in service_task. If
IXGBE_FLAG_NEED_LINK_UPDATE is set in adapter->flags,
the function ixgbe_watchdog_link_is_up will run every 100ms.
IXGBE_FLAG_NEED_LINK_UPDATE is set in ixgbe_check_lsc in x540. This
function ixgbe_check_lsc is in irq handler.
link_up will trigger it.
As such, link_up will trriger ixgbe_check_lsc to set
IXGBE_FLAG_NEED_LINK_UPDATE in adapter->flags. In the end,
service_task will check the register IXGBE_LINKS every 100ms.
So ixgbe_get_settings and netif_carrier_ok travel different paths to the
function ixgbe_check_mac_link_generic.
And the time span between ixgbe_get_settings and netif_carrier_ok is
very tiny, about 100ms. So we can treat it simultaneous.
>
> This is a trace from the case where the bonding driver reports 0 Mbps:
>
> kworker/u48:1-27950 [010] .... 6493.084916: ixgbe_service_task: eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = false
> kworker/u48:1-27950 [011] .... 6493.184894: ixgbe_service_task: eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = false
> kworker/u48:1-27950 [000] .... 6494.439883: ixgbe_service_task: eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = true
> kworker/u48:1-27950 [000] .... 6494.464204: ixgbe_service_task: eth1: NIC Link is Up 10 Gbps, Flow Control: RX/TX
> kworker/0:2-1926 [000] .... 6494.464249: ixgbe_get_settings: eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = false
> NetworkManager-3819 [008] .... 6494.464484: ixgbe_get_settings: eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = false
> kworker/u48:1-27950 [007] .... 6494.496886: bond_mii_monitor: bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth1, 0 Mbps full duplex
> NetworkManager-3819 [008] .... 6494.496967: ixgbe_get_settings: eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = false
> kworker/u48:1-27950 [008] .... 6495.288798: ixgbe_service_task: eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = true
> kworker/u48:1-27950 [008] .... 6495.388806: ixgbe_service_task: eth1: link_speed = 80, link_up = true
>
> As you can see the link is initially established, but then lost and if just so happens that the
> bonding driver is checking it at that time it will report 0 Mbps.
Thanks for your reply. I will delve into the source code.
Best Regards!
Zhu Yanjun
>
> I will give your patch a try and see if it helps in this situation.
>
> Thanks,
> Emil
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-07 3:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-17 8:03 [PATCH 1/1] bonding: restrict up state in 802.3ad mode zyjzyj2000
2015-12-17 21:57 ` Jay Vosburgh
2015-12-18 4:36 ` zyjzyj2000
2015-12-18 4:36 ` [PATCH 1/1] bonding: delay up state without speed and duplex " zyjzyj2000
2015-12-18 4:54 ` Jay Vosburgh
2015-12-18 13:37 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2015-12-28 8:43 ` [PATCH 1/1] bonding: restrict up state " Michal Kubecek
2015-12-28 9:19 ` zhuyj
2016-01-06 1:26 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-06 3:05 ` zhuyj
2016-01-07 2:43 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-07 3:33 ` zhuyj [this message]
2016-01-07 5:02 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-07 6:15 ` zyjzyj2000
2016-01-07 6:22 ` zhuyj
2016-01-07 6:33 ` Jay Vosburgh
2016-01-07 15:27 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-08 1:28 ` [RFC PATCH net-next] bonding: Use notifiers for slave link state detection Jay Vosburgh
2016-01-08 4:36 ` zhuyj
2016-01-08 6:12 ` Jay Vosburgh
2016-01-08 7:41 ` (unknown), zyjzyj2000
2016-01-08 7:41 ` [PATCH 1/1] bonding: utilize notifier callbacks to detect slave link state changes zyjzyj2000
2016-01-08 10:18 ` zhuyj
2016-01-09 1:35 ` [RFC PATCH net-next] bonding: Use notifiers for slave link state detection Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-09 2:19 ` Jay Vosburgh
2016-01-11 9:03 ` zhuyj
2016-01-13 2:54 ` zhuyj
2016-01-13 17:03 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-20 5:13 ` [PATCH 1/1] " zyjzyj2000
2016-01-20 5:13 ` zyjzyj2000
2016-01-21 10:16 ` zyjzyj2000
2016-01-21 10:16 ` zyjzyj2000
2016-01-25 16:37 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-26 0:43 ` Jay Vosburgh
2016-01-26 3:19 ` zhuyj
2016-01-26 6:00 ` Jay Vosburgh
2016-01-26 6:26 ` zhuyj
2016-01-26 6:45 ` zhuyj
2016-01-27 20:00 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-28 8:44 ` zyjzyj2000
2016-01-29 7:05 ` zhuyj
2016-01-25 16:33 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-25 18:00 ` David Miller
2016-01-25 18:37 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-08 2:29 ` [PATCH 1/1] bonding: restrict up state in 802.3ad mode zhuyj
2016-01-07 6:53 ` Michal Kubecek
2016-01-07 7:37 ` zhuyj
2016-01-07 7:59 ` Michal Kubecek
2016-01-07 8:35 ` zhuyj
2016-01-07 7:47 ` zhuyj
2016-01-07 18:28 ` Tantilov, Emil S
2016-01-08 6:09 ` zhuyj
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-01-07 6:13 zyjzyj2000
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=568DDC90.7030408@gmail.com \
--to=zyjzyj2000@gmail.com \
--cc=boris.shteinbock@windriver.com \
--cc=emil.s.tantilov@intel.com \
--cc=gospo@cumulusnetworks.com \
--cc=jay.vosburgh@canonical.com \
--cc=mkubecek@suse.cz \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vfalico@gmail.com \
/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.