From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: "Tom, Deepak Abraham" <deepak-abraham.tom@hpe.com>
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2nd RTM_NEWLINK notification with operstate down is always 1 second delayed
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 09:31:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240419093108.0fb8c108@hermes.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DS7PR84MB3039BEC88FB54C62BD107CF6D70E2@DS7PR84MB3039.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 19:26:51 +0000
"Tom, Deepak Abraham" <deepak-abraham.tom@hpe.com> wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but could you please explain how this really helps to not keep FRR busy?
> If I understood this right, the link watch code does not ignore events but merely delays them. So any link transition will be propagated whether its scheduled urgently or not urgently.
> So FRR will have to still deal with each transition keeping it busy with or without this change, unless FRR dampens flaps on its own?
>
A poor connection to a switch can cause repeated link down/up. I haven't seen it in person,
but have had to deal with user reports of poor router connections.
> Also from a design perspective, would it be better if FRR's issues with route flaps be dealt directly in FRR code itself? That way, in use cases where FRR does not come in to play, such a delay is not causing other consequences? Are there more such situations where such a delay is absolutely required?
Too late, now. Can't change Linux semantics without breaking many things. And it impacts not just FRR.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-19 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-17 17:37 2nd RTM_NEWLINK notification with operstate down is always 1 second delayed Tom, Deepak Abraham
2024-04-17 22:33 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-04-18 19:26 ` Tom, Deepak Abraham
2024-04-19 16:31 ` Stephen Hemminger [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=20240419093108.0fb8c108@hermes.local \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=deepak-abraham.tom@hpe.com \
--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