From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: bonding (IEEE 802.3ad) not working with qemu/virtio Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:59:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20160129.225924.1343743091073159760.davem@davemloft.net> References: <56ABDA3D.8040100@cumulusnetworks.com> <28285.1454103900@famine> <56ABDE2A.7010301@cumulusnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: jiri@resnulli.us, mst@redhat.com, gospo@cumulusnetworks.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, bjornar.ness@gmail.com, vfalico@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com To: nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56ABDE2A.7010301@cumulusnetworks.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Nikolay Aleksandrov Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:48:26 +0100 > On 01/29/2016 10:45 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote: >> Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: >> = >>> On 01/25/2016 05:24 PM, Bj=F8rnar Ness wrote: >>>> As subject says, 802.3ad bonding is not working with virtio network mo= del. >>>> >>>> The only errors I see is: >>>> >>>> No 802.3ad response from the link partner for any adapters in the bond. >>>> >>>> Dumping the network traffic shows that no LACP packets are sent from t= he >>>> host running with virtio driver, changing to for example e1000 solves >>>> this problem >>>> with no configuration changes. >>>> >>>> Is this a known problem? >>>> >>> [Including bonding maintainers for comments] >>> >>> Hi, >>> Here's a workaround patch for virtio_net devices that "cheats" the >>> duplex test (which is the actual problem). I've tested this locally >>> and it works for me. >>> I'd let the others comment on the implementation, there're other signs >>> that can be used to distinguish a virtio_net device so I'm open to sugg= estions. >>> Also feedback if this is at all acceptable would be appreciated. >> = >> Should virtio instead provide an arbitrary speed and full duplex >> to ethtool, as veth does? >> = >> Creating a magic whitelist of devices deep inside the 802.3ad >> implementation seems less desirable. >> = > TBH, I absolutely agree. In fact here's what we've been doing: > add set_settings which allows the user to set any speed/duplex > and get_settings of course to retrieve that. This is also useful > for testing other stuff that requires speed and duplex, not only > for the bonding case. I also agree. Having a whitelist is just rediculous. There should be a default speed/duplex setting for such devices as well. We can pick one that will be use universally for these kinds of devices.