From: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 5/9] bonding: convert bond_has_this_ip() to use upper devices
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:53:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130827115304.GC24836@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130827112529.GA4732@minipsycho.brq.redhat.com>
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:25:29PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:16:48PM CEST, vfalico@redhat.com wrote:
>>On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:53:38PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:32:38PM CEST, vfalico@redhat.com wrote:
>>...snip...
>>>>+ rcu_read_lock();
>>>>+ netdev_for_each_upper_dev(bond->dev, upper, iter) {
>>>>+ if (ip == bond_confirm_addr(upper, 0, ip)) {
>>>>+ ret = true;
>>>>+ break;
>>>>+ }
>>>
>>>You need the same recursion __vlan_find_dev_deep() is doing. If you do
>>>not do that, you will miss anything over the first upper level.
>>
>>Good point, and it's true for other uses also - bond_arp_send_all(), for
>>example, will also miss anything that's higher than the first upper level.
>>
>>I can't think of a use case scenario when we would need only the first
>>upper level - so maybe we should either make netdev_for_each_upper_dev()
>>recursive by default (I don't know how it can be done easily, tbh, without
>>modifying the existing code), or add something like:
>>
>>diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
>>index 566e99a..4a4468f 100644
>>--- a/net/core/dev.c
>>+++ b/net/core/dev.c
>>@@ -4387,6 +4387,31 @@ static void __append_search_uppers(struct list_head *search_list,
>> }
>> }
>>+struct net_device *netdev_upper_recursive_do_rcu(struct net_device *dev,
>>+ struct net_device *orig_dev,
>>+ bool (*f)(struct net_device *,
>>+ struct net_device *))
>>+{
>>+ struct netdev_upper *upper;
>>+ struct net_device *ret = NULL;
>>+
>>+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(upper, &dev->upper_dev_list, list) {
>>+ if (f(orig_dev, upper->dev)) {
>>+ ret = upper->dev;
>>+ break;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ if (!list_empty(&upper->dev->upper_dev_list)) {
>>+ ret = netdev_upper_recursive_do_rcu(upper->dev,
>>+ orig_dev, f);
>>+ if (ret)
>>+ break;
>>+ }
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ return ret;
>>+}
>>+
>> static bool __netdev_search_upper_dev(struct net_device *dev,
>> struct net_device *upper_dev)
>> {
>>
>>How do you think?
>
>I do not like this. How about to put all levels to upper_dev list and
>mark those who are not direct (not level1) ? Then we can use single list
>for all purposes.
I don't see how it can be done on attach/removal of upper devices, cause we
don't have a way to know the 'lower' devices, and will break scenarios like
bond -> bridge ->+ vlan
when vlan is added, we can't update bond's upper_dev_list.
And if we'll start doing it 'on the fly', while searching, by using
search_list (or something new), we'll be racy and require locking, not just
RCU.
Am I again missing something? :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-27 11:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-26 20:32 [PATCH net-next v1 0/9] bonding: remove vlan special handling Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-26 20:32 ` [PATCH net-next v1 1/9] net: add netdev_upper_get_next_dev(dev, iter) Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-26 20:57 ` Jiri Pirko
2013-08-27 10:42 ` Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-26 20:32 ` [PATCH net-next v1 2/9] net: add netdev_for_each_upper_dev() Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-26 20:32 ` [PATCH net-next v1 3/9] bonding: use netdev_upper list in bond_vlan_used Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-26 20:32 ` [PATCH net-next v1 4/9] bonding: make bond_arp_send_all use upper device list Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-26 20:32 ` [PATCH net-next v1 5/9] bonding: convert bond_has_this_ip() to use upper devices Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-26 20:53 ` Jiri Pirko
2013-08-27 11:16 ` Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-27 11:25 ` Jiri Pirko
2013-08-27 11:53 ` Veaceslav Falico [this message]
2013-08-27 18:10 ` Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-28 12:00 ` Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-28 14:56 ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-08-28 16:32 ` Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-26 20:32 ` [PATCH net-next v1 6/9] bonding: use vlan_uses_dev() in __bond_release_one() Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-26 20:32 ` [PATCH net-next v1 7/9] bonding: split alb_send_learning_packets() Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-26 20:32 ` [PATCH net-next v1 8/9] bonding: make alb_send_learning_packets() use upper dev list Veaceslav Falico
2013-08-26 20:32 ` [PATCH net-next v1 9/9] bonding: remove vlan_list/current_alb_vlan Veaceslav Falico
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=20130827115304.GC24836@redhat.com \
--to=vfalico@redhat.com \
--cc=andy@greyhouse.net \
--cc=fubar@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--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 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).