From: "Nicolas de Pesloüan" <nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com>
To: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@genband.com>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
andy@greyhouse.net
Subject: Re: bonding and SR-IOV -- do we need arp_validation for loadbalancing too?
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:15:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <500F108F.6020706@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <24104.1343162975@death.nxdomain>
Le 24/07/2012 22:49, Jay Vosburgh a écrit :
[...]
>> In loadbalance mode wouldn't it just work similar to active-backup? If
>> it's a reply then verify that it came from the arp target, if it's a
>> request then check to see if it came from one of the other slaves.
>
> The problem isn't verifying the requests or replies, it's that
> the ARP packets are not distributed across all slaves (because the
> switch ports are in a channel group / aggregator), so some slaves do not
> receive any ARPs.
>
> The bond sends the ARP request as a broadcast. For
> active-backup, this ends up at the inactive slaves because the switch
> sends the broadcast to all ports. For a loadbalance mode, the switch
> won't send the broadcast ARP to the other slaves, because all the slaves
> are in a channel group or lacp aggregator, which is treated by the
> switch as effectively a single switch port for this case.
>
> Similarly, the ARP replies are unicast, and the switch will send
> those unicast replies to only one member of the channel group or
> aggregator. The choice there is usually a hash of some kind, so
> generally only one slave will receive the replies.
I assume team should suffer the exact same problem, because most of this is on the switch side and
out of the control of the host. Jiri, can you confirm?
[...]
> I believe bonding is the main user of last_rx (a search shows a
> couple of drivers using it internally). For bonding use, in current
> mainline last_rx is set by bonding itself, not in the network device
> driver.
If last_rx is set and used internally by bonding and mostly unused elsewhere, can't we remove it
from net_device and move it into private data for the slaves in bonding?
A comment in netdevice.h even recommends not to set it into drivers:
unsigned long last_rx; /* Time of last Rx
* This should not be set in
* drivers, unless really needed,
* because network stack (bonding)
* use it if/when necessary, to
* avoid dirtying this cache line.
*/
Nicolas.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-24 21:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-24 15:57 bonding and SR-IOV -- do we need arp_validation for loadbalancing too? Chris Friesen
2012-07-24 16:42 ` Jiri Pirko
2012-07-24 18:13 ` Jay Vosburgh
2012-07-24 20:18 ` Chris Friesen
2012-07-24 20:38 ` Chris Friesen
2012-07-24 20:49 ` Jay Vosburgh
2012-07-24 21:15 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan [this message]
2012-07-24 21:38 ` Chris Friesen
2012-07-27 14:55 ` Andy Gospodarek
2012-07-27 16:15 ` Chris Friesen
2012-07-27 17:13 ` Andy Gospodarek
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=500F108F.6020706@gmail.com \
--to=nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com \
--cc=andy@greyhouse.net \
--cc=chris.friesen@genband.com \
--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).