From: zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com>
To: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@oracle.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: jay.vosburgh@canonical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: take care of bonding in build_skb_flow_key (v3)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:24:06 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <569F2806.70608@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1453267933-25381-1-git-send-email-wen.gang.wang@oracle.com>
On 01/20/2016 01:32 PM, Wengang Wang wrote:
> In a bonding setting, we determines fragment size according to MTU and
> PMTU associated to the bonding master. If the slave finds the fragment
> size is too big, it drops the fragment and calls ip_rt_update_pmtu(),
> passing _skb_ and _pmtu_, trying to update the path MTU.
> Problem is that the target device that function ip_rt_update_pmtu actually
> tries to update is the slave (skb->dev), not the master. Thus since no
> PMTU change happens on master, the fragment size for later packets doesn't
> change so all later fragments/packets are dropped too.
>
> The fix is letting build_skb_flow_key() take care of the transition of
> device index from bonding slave to the master. That makes the master become
> the target device that ip_rt_update_pmtu tries to update PMTU to.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@oracle.com>
> ---
> net/ipv4/route.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
> index 85f184e..c59fb0d 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/route.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/route.c
> @@ -523,10 +523,21 @@ static void build_skb_flow_key(struct flowi4 *fl4, const struct sk_buff *skb,
> const struct sock *sk)
> {
> const struct iphdr *iph = ip_hdr(skb);
> - int oif = skb->dev->ifindex;
> + struct net_device *master = NULL;
> u8 tos = RT_TOS(iph->tos);
> u8 prot = iph->protocol;
> u32 mark = skb->mark;
> + int oif;
> +
> + if (skb->dev->flags & IFF_SLAVE) {
> + rtnl_lock();
> + master = netdev_master_upper_dev_get(skb->dev);
> + rtnl_unlock();
update_pmtu is called very frequently. Is it appropriate to use
rtnl_lock here?
That is, rtnl_lock is called frequently. Maybe other functions have
little chance to call rtnl_lock.
Best Regards!
Zhu Yanjun
> + }
> + if (master)
> + oif = master->ifindex;
> + else
> + oif = skb->dev->ifindex;
>
> __build_flow_key(fl4, sk, iph, oif, tos, prot, mark, 0);
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-20 6:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-20 5:32 [PATCH] net: take care of bonding in build_skb_flow_key (v3) Wengang Wang
2016-01-20 6:24 ` zhuyj [this message]
2016-01-20 6:29 ` zhuyj
2016-01-20 6:32 ` zhuyj
2016-01-20 7:38 ` Wengang Wang
2016-01-20 7:54 ` zhuyj
2016-01-20 9:47 ` Wengang Wang
2016-01-20 9:56 ` zhuyj
2016-01-21 2:40 ` Wengang Wang
2016-01-21 4:05 ` Jay Vosburgh
2016-01-21 5:17 ` Wengang Wang
2016-01-20 15:18 ` Sabrina Dubroca
2016-01-21 5:15 ` Wengang Wang
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=569F2806.70608@gmail.com \
--to=zyjzyj2000@gmail.com \
--cc=jay.vosburgh@canonical.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wen.gang.wang@oracle.com \
/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).