linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
To: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@citrix.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	<xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-netback: Turn off the carrier if the guest is not able to receive
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:37:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53E8B914.8080504@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53E8B7BF.2020107@citrix.com>

On 11/08/14 13:31, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 08/08/14 17:33, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> This idea of bouncing carrier is wrong. If guest is flow blocked you
>> don't
>> want to toggle carrier. That will cause problems because applications
>> that are
>> looking for carrier transistions like routing daemons will be notified.
>>
>> If running a routing daemon this will also lead to link flapping which
>> is very bad and cause lots of other work for peer routing daemons.
>>
>> Carrier is not a suitable flow control mechanism.
>>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Indeed, I also had some concerns about using carrier state to solve this
> problem, as the notifier can kick a lot of things, and flapping is not
> impossible. That's why the frontend has 10 seconds by default to do
> something. Practice shows that if a frontend can't do any receive work
> for that time, it is unlikely it will be able to do it soon.
> So worst case carrier flapping can happen only in every 10 seconds, I
> think that's manageable. I think the majority of the users have simple
> bridged setups where this carrier change doesn't start any expensive
> operation.
> The reason we choose carrier change for this purpose because we needed
> something which ditched everything in QDisc and made sure nothing will
> be queued up there until there is a chance we can transmit to the guest.
> Calling dev_deactivate straight away seemed less appropriate.

I do think we need to revisit this and introduce a per-queue
stop_and_flush operation we can use instead.

David

      reply	other threads:[~2014-08-11 12:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-07-30 19:50 [PATCH] xen-netback: Using a new state bit instead of carrier Zoltan Kiss
2014-07-30 19:50 ` [PATCH] xen-netback: Turn off the carrier if the guest is not able to receive Zoltan Kiss
2014-08-01  4:53   ` David Miller
2014-08-01 10:52   ` Wei Liu
2014-08-04 15:04     ` Zoltan Kiss
2014-08-04 13:35   ` [Xen-devel] " David Vrabel
2014-08-04 15:13     ` Zoltan Kiss
2014-08-08 16:33       ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-08-11 12:31         ` Zoltan Kiss
2014-08-11 12:37           ` David Vrabel [this message]

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=53E8B914.8080504@citrix.com \
    --to=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
    --cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    --cc=zoltan.kiss@citrix.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).