Bonding problem

Bonding problem

[Eduard Sinelnikov]

Hi,

In the kernel 2.6.39.3 ( /drivers/net/bond/bond_main.c).
In the function  ‘bond_xmit_roundrobin’
The code check if the bond is active via
‘bond_is_active_slave(slave)’ Function call.
Which actually checks if the slave is backup or active
What is the meaning of slave being  backup in round robin mode?
Correct me if I wrong but in round robin every slave should send a
packet, regardless of being active or backup.

Thank you,
           Eduard

Re: Bonding problem

[Andy Gospodarek]

On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 03:00:30PM +0300, Eduard Sinelnikov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In the kernel 2.6.39.3 ( /drivers/net/bond/bond_main.c).
> In the function  ‘bond_xmit_roundrobin’
> The code check if the bond is active via
> ‘bond_is_active_slave(slave)’ Function call.
> Which actually checks if the slave is backup or active
> What is the meaning of slave being  backup in round robin mode?
> Correct me if I wrong but in round robin every slave should send a
> packet, regardless of being active or backup.
> 
> Thank you,
>            Eduard

There probably is not a compelling reason to continue to have it.  There
may be a reason historically, but I'm not aware what that might be at
this point.  For modes other than active-backup, the value of
slave->link and slave->backup should always contain a value that
indicates the slave is up and available for transmit.

Re: Bonding problem

[Jay Vosburgh]

Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> wrote:

>On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 03:00:30PM +0300, Eduard Sinelnikov wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> In the kernel 2.6.39.3 ( /drivers/net/bond/bond_main.c).
>> In the function  ‘bond_xmit_roundrobin’
>> The code check if the bond is active via
>> ‘bond_is_active_slave(slave)’ Function call.
>> Which actually checks if the slave is backup or active
>> What is the meaning of slave being  backup in round robin mode?
>> Correct me if I wrong but in round robin every slave should send a
>> packet, regardless of being active or backup.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>>            Eduard
>
>There probably is not a compelling reason to continue to have it.  There
>may be a reason historically, but I'm not aware what that might be at
>this point.  For modes other than active-backup, the value of
>slave->link and slave->backup should always contain a value that
>indicates the slave is up and available for transmit.

	If you read Eduard's other posts regarding this, the actual
issue is that when changing from another mode into round-robin,
occasionally slaves will still be marked as "backup" and won't be used:

>Date: 	Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:16:39 +0300
>Subject: On line Bonding configuration change fails
>From: Eduard Sinelnikov <eduard.sinelnikov@gmail.com>
>To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
>Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
>
>Hi,
>
>My configuration is a follows:
>
>             | eth0 -------------->
>Ububntu | eth1 -------------->    Swith ------------> Other computer
>
>Scenario:
>• change the bond mode to active/backup
>• unplug some of the cable
>• plug-in the unplugged cable
>• change bond mode to round robin
>
>I can see that only one eth1 is sending data. When I unplug it the ping stops.
>
>Is it a bug or some mis-configuration?
>
>In the kernel ( /drivers/net/bond/bond_main.c).
>In the function  ‘bond_xmit_roundrobin
>’
>The code check if the bond is active via
>‘bond_is_active_slave(slave)’ Function call.
>Which actually checks if the slave is backup or active
>What is the meaning of backup in round robin?
>Correct me if I wrong but in round robin every slave should send a
>packet, regardless of being active or backup.

	So from looking at the code, it seems that the actual problem is
that when transitioning to round-robin mode, one or more slaves can
remain marked as "backup," and in round-robin mode, that won't ever
change.  We could probably work around that by removing the "is_active"
test (essentially declaring that "is_active" is only valid in
active-backup mode).  That might produce a few odd messages here and
there (when removing a slave or during a link failure, for example).

	From inspection, the bond_xmit_xor function likely has this same
problem.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com

Re: Bonding problem

[Andy Gospodarek]

On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 10:06:05AM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> 
> Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 03:00:30PM +0300, Eduard Sinelnikov wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> In the kernel 2.6.39.3 ( /drivers/net/bond/bond_main.c).
> >> In the function  ‘bond_xmit_roundrobin’
> >> The code check if the bond is active via
> >> ‘bond_is_active_slave(slave)’ Function call.
> >> Which actually checks if the slave is backup or active
> >> What is the meaning of slave being  backup in round robin mode?
> >> Correct me if I wrong but in round robin every slave should send a
> >> packet, regardless of being active or backup.
> >> 
> >> Thank you,
> >>            Eduard
> >
> >There probably is not a compelling reason to continue to have it.  There
> >may be a reason historically, but I'm not aware what that might be at
> >this point.  For modes other than active-backup, the value of
> >slave->link and slave->backup should always contain a value that
> >indicates the slave is up and available for transmit.
> 
> 	If you read Eduard's other posts regarding this, the actual
> issue is that when changing from another mode into round-robin,
> occasionally slaves will still be marked as "backup" and won't be used:
> 

I did notice that one after I sent this first response.

> >Date: 	Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:16:39 +0300
> >Subject: On line Bonding configuration change fails
> >From: Eduard Sinelnikov <eduard.sinelnikov@gmail.com>
> >To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> >Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >My configuration is a follows:
> >
> >             | eth0 -------------->
> >Ububntu | eth1 -------------->    Swith ------------> Other computer
> >
> >Scenario:
> >• change the bond mode to active/backup
> >• unplug some of the cable
> >• plug-in the unplugged cable
> >• change bond mode to round robin
> >
> >I can see that only one eth1 is sending data. When I unplug it the ping stops.
> >
> >Is it a bug or some mis-configuration?
> >
> >In the kernel ( /drivers/net/bond/bond_main.c).
> >In the function  ‘bond_xmit_roundrobin
> >’
> >The code check if the bond is active via
> >‘bond_is_active_slave(slave)’ Function call.
> >Which actually checks if the slave is backup or active
> >What is the meaning of backup in round robin?
> >Correct me if I wrong but in round robin every slave should send a
> >packet, regardless of being active or backup.
> 
> 	So from looking at the code, it seems that the actual problem is
> that when transitioning to round-robin mode, one or more slaves can
> remain marked as "backup," and in round-robin mode, that won't ever
> change.  We could probably work around that by removing the "is_active"
> test (essentially declaring that "is_active" is only valid in
> active-backup mode).  That might produce a few odd messages here and
> there (when removing a slave or during a link failure, for example).
> 
> 	From inspection, the bond_xmit_xor function likely has this same
> problem.
> 

Agreed.

> 	-J
> 
> ---
> 	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Bonding problem

[Eduard Sinelnikov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3853 bytes --]

Hi all,

Following the thread:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=131282467512508&w=2

I have created the this patch for kernel version:3.0.1, which may fix
the bonding problem

Patch explanation:
The patch seting all slaves active prior to switching to round robin mode.
This is done to ensure that every posibly active slave will be used in
communication.

Also, I noticed that just changing the bond_xmit_round_robin will only
partially fix the problem.
Since slaves with inactive bit will not CATCH any trafic.

I wonder if I should remove the check "bond_is_active_slave(slave))"
in bond_xmit_round_robin

Please advice.
            Eduard


On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 10:06:05AM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>
> Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 03:00:30PM +0300, Eduard Sinelnikov wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In the kernel 2.6.39.3 ( /drivers/net/bond/bond_main.c).
> >> In the function  ‘bond_xmit_roundrobin’
> >> The code check if the bond is active via
> >> ‘bond_is_active_slave(slave)’ Function call.
> >> Which actually checks if the slave is backup or active
> >> What is the meaning of slave being  backup in round robin mode?
> >> Correct me if I wrong but in round robin every slave should send a
> >> packet, regardless of being active or backup.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â Eduard
> >
> >There probably is not a compelling reason to continue to have it.  There
> >may be a reason historically, but I'm not aware what that might be at
> >this point.  For modes other than active-backup, the value of
> >slave->link and slave->backup should always contain a value that
> >indicates the slave is up and available for transmit.
>
> If you read Eduard's other posts regarding this, the actual
> issue is that when changing from another mode into round-robin,
> occasionally slaves will still be marked as "backup" and won't be used:
>

I did notice that one after I sent this first response.

> >Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:16:39 +0300
> >Subject: On line Bonding configuration change fails
> >From: Eduard Sinelnikov <eduard.sinelnikov@gmail.com>
> >To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> >Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >My configuration is a follows:
> >
> >Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â | eth0 -------------->
> >Ububntu | eth1 --------------> Â  Â Swith ------------> Other computer
> >
> >Scenario:
> >• change the bond mode to active/backup
> >• unplug some of the cable
> >• plug-in the unplugged cable
> >• change bond mode to round robin
> >
> >I can see that only one eth1 is sending data. When I unplug it the ping stops.
> >
> >Is it a bug or some mis-configuration?
> >
> >In the kernel ( /drivers/net/bond/bond_main.c).
> >In the function  ‘bond_xmit_roundrobin
> >’
> >The code check if the bond is active via
> >‘bond_is_active_slave(slave)’ Function call.
> >Which actually checks if the slave is backup or active
> >What is the meaning of backup in round robin?
> >Correct me if I wrong but in round robin every slave should send a
> >packet, regardless of being active or backup.
>
> So from looking at the code, it seems that the actual problem is
> that when transitioning to round-robin mode, one or more slaves can
> remain marked as "backup," and in round-robin mode, that won't ever
> change.  We could probably work around that by removing the "is_active"
> test (essentially declaring that "is_active" is only valid in
> active-backup mode).  That might produce a few odd messages here and
> there (when removing a slave or during a link failure, for example).
>
> From inspection, the bond_xmit_xor function likely has this same
> problem.
>

Agreed.

> -J
>
> ---
> -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com

[-- Attachment #2: bond_patch.patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 1471 bytes --]

diff -uprN linux-3.0.1/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c linux-3.0.1.bond/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
--- linux-3.0.1/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c	2011-08-05 07:59:21.000000000 +0300
+++ linux-3.0.1.bond/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c	2011-08-15 11:59:13.346377263 +0300
@@ -290,6 +290,37 @@ static ssize_t bonding_show_mode(struct
 			bond->params.mode);
 }
 
+
+
+// activate all interfaces.
+static void inline bonding_activate_interfaces(struct bonding * bond )
+{
+	struct slave *slave ;
+	int i ;
+
+	
+
+	read_lock(&bond->lock);	
+	
+	bond_for_each_slave(bond, slave, i) {
+	
+		read_lock(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
+	
+		// change the backup to active since there is no meaninng of backup in round robin.
+		// Also, change the device state so it can catch traffic.
+		if ((  bond_slave_state(slave) ) || slave->inactive ) {
+			if ((slave->link == BOND_LINK_UP) && IS_UP(slave->dev)) {
+				bond_set_slave_active_flags(slave);
+			}
+		}
+		
+		read_unlock(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
+	}
+	
+	read_unlock(&bond->lock);
+
+} 
+
 static ssize_t bonding_store_mode(struct device *d,
 				  struct device_attribute *attr,
 				  const char *buf, size_t count)
@@ -320,6 +351,10 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_mode(struct
 		goto out;
 	}
 
+	if (bond->params.mode == BOND_MODE_ROUNDROBIN) {
+		bonding_activate_interfaces(bond) ;
+	}
+
 	bond->params.mode = new_value;
 	bond_set_mode_ops(bond, bond->params.mode);
 	pr_info("%s: setting mode to %s (%d).\n",

Re: Bonding problem

[WeipingPan]

On 08/15/2011 05:44 PM, Eduard Sinelnikov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Following the thread:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=131282467512508&w=2
>
> I have created the this patch for kernel version:3.0.1, which may fix
> the bonding problem
>
> Patch explanation:
> The patch seting all slaves active prior to switching to round robin mode.
> This is done to ensure that every posibly active slave will be used in
> communication.
>
> Also, I noticed that just changing the bond_xmit_round_robin will only
> partially fix the problem.
> Since slaves with inactive bit will not CATCH any trafic.
>
> I wonder if I should remove the check "bond_is_active_slave(slave))"
> in bond_xmit_round_robin
>
> Please advice.
>              Eduard
>
>
My patch is to restore the backup and inactive flag of slave, too,
and I think it is more generic. :-)

Will send it soon.

thanks
Weiping Pan

> On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 10:06:05AM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> Andy Gospodarek<andy@greyhouse.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 03:00:30PM +0300, Eduard Sinelnikov wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> In the kernel 2.6.39.3 ( /drivers/net/bond/bond_main.c).
>>>> In the function  ‘bond_xmit_roundrobin’
>>>> The code check if the bond is active via
>>>> ‘bond_is_active_slave(slave)’ Function call.
>>>> Which actually checks if the slave is backup or active
>>>> What is the meaning of slave being  backup in round robin mode?
>>>> Correct me if I wrong but in round robin every slave should send a
>>>> packet, regardless of being active or backup.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â Eduard
>>> There probably is not a compelling reason to continue to have it.  There
>>> may be a reason historically, but I'm not aware what that might be at
>>> this point.  For modes other than active-backup, the value of
>>> slave->link and slave->backup should always contain a value that
>>> indicates the slave is up and available for transmit.
>> If you read Eduard's other posts regarding this, the actual
>> issue is that when changing from another mode into round-robin,
>> occasionally slaves will still be marked as "backup" and won't be used:
>>
> I did notice that one after I sent this first response.
>
>>> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:16:39 +0300
>>> Subject: On line Bonding configuration change fails
>>> From: Eduard Sinelnikov<eduard.sinelnikov@gmail.com>
>>> To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
>>> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> My configuration is a follows:
>>>
>>> Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â | eth0 -------------->
>>> Ububntu | eth1 -------------->  Â  Â Swith ------------>  Other computer
>>>
>>> Scenario:
>>> • change the bond mode to active/backup
>>> • unplug some of the cable
>>> • plug-in the unplugged cable
>>> • change bond mode to round robin
>>>
>>> I can see that only one eth1 is sending data. When I unplug it the ping stops.
>>>
>>> Is it a bug or some mis-configuration?
>>>
>>> In the kernel ( /drivers/net/bond/bond_main.c).
>>> In the function  ‘bond_xmit_roundrobin
>>> ’
>>> The code check if the bond is active via
>>> ‘bond_is_active_slave(slave)’ Function call.
>>> Which actually checks if the slave is backup or active
>>> What is the meaning of backup in round robin?
>>> Correct me if I wrong but in round robin every slave should send a
>>> packet, regardless of being active or backup.
>> So from looking at the code, it seems that the actual problem is
>> that when transitioning to round-robin mode, one or more slaves can
>> remain marked as "backup," and in round-robin mode, that won't ever
>> change.  We could probably work around that by removing the "is_active"
>> test (essentially declaring that "is_active" is only valid in
>> active-backup mode).  That might produce a few odd messages here and
>> there (when removing a slave or during a link failure, for example).
>>
>>  From inspection, the bond_xmit_xor function likely has this same
>> problem.
>>
> Agreed.
>
>> -J
>>
>> ---
>> -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com