netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@oracle.com>
To: zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.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: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:40:34 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56A04522.9010300@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <569F59D8.2060200@gmail.com>



在 2016年01月20日 17:56, zhuyj 写道:
> On 01/20/2016 05:47 PM, Wengang Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2016年01月20日 15:54, zhuyj 写道:
>>> On 01/20/2016 03:38 PM, Wengang Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 在 2016年01月20日 14:24, zhuyj 写道:
>>>>> 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?
>>>> By "very frequently", how frequently it is expected? And what 
>>>> situation can cause that?
>>>> For my case, the update_pmtu is called only once.
>>> ip_tunnel_xmit
>>>
>> Can you please explain with more details?
>
> dev_queue_xmit->ipip_tunnel_xmit->ip_tunnel_xmit->tnl_update_pmtu-> 
> skb_dst(skb)->ops->update_pmtu
For ipip,  yes seems update_pmtu is called in line for each call of 
queue_xmit.  Do you know if it's a good configuration for ipip + bonding?
Other's comment and suggestion?

thanks,
wengang

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-21  2:37 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
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 [this message]
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=56A04522.9010300@oracle.com \
    --to=wen.gang.wang@oracle.com \
    --cc=jay.vosburgh@canonical.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=zyjzyj2000@gmail.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).