public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Felix Maurer <fmaurer@redhat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
	kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org,
	jkarrenpalo@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org,
	allison.henderson@oracle.com, petrm@nvidia.com,
	antonio@openvpn.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/9] selftests: hsr: Add tests for more link faults with PRP
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 16:32:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aYIVCHouYi5h1dHU@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260203144903.ifAQ9Yh4@linutronix.de>

On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 03:49:03PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-02-03 13:09:40 [+0100], Felix Maurer wrote:
> > I agree, the reboot case is safe because of the 500ms quiet period. But
> > I kinda fear a situation where a node sends a lot of packets (making
> > it's sequence number wrap within the 400ms), but only a small fraction
>
> wrap? A lot of packets means you force-recycle the oldest block. This
> doesn't have an impact on timing.
>
> > of that to us, so that we don't clear blocks because of a full buffer.
>
> Why does this make a difference? Are you describing it from PRP
> perspective? From HSR point of view, each node sees all frames. If you
> have HW support for de-duplication then you don't see duplicates.

Good point, I didn't state that explicitly. All of my reasoning was
based on a PRP perspective, where we don't necessarily see all frames.

> > That could make a block live pretty long, when we hit it multiple times,
> > which could in turn lead to valid, new frames being dropped. I'd say
>
> The block covers up to 128 frames and you have 64 blocks. This covers
> 8192 incremental seq-numbers and every block gets recycled 8 times until
> the seq-number overflow.
>
> I think you are afraid if a node sends 65536 packets in less than 400ms
> and the receiving node observes only a fraction of it (less than 8192)
> so it does not expire blocks by force. This may indeed lead to dropping
> "new" packets.
> But this should be only a PRP problem or also a HSR problem if the used
> sequence number has "random" increments.

Yes, that's about the scenario I'm considering (I very much agree it's
an edge case, though). At it's face, this is only a PRP problem.

But I think this PRP problem can extend into an HSR ring. The standard
describes how HSR rings can be coupled to a PRP network using two
RedBoxes in HSR-PRP mode. Assuming a node in the PRP network sends a
frame, if the RedBox knows the receiver is a node in the PRP network, it
will not inject the frame into the HSR ring.  Therefore, the MACs in the
PRP network could be appearing as nodes sending with random increments
in our HSR ring. Notably, we can't know if such RedBoxes exist in our
ring. Yeah, it's another condition that needs to be met, and the edge
case get's thinner.

Thanks,
   Felix


  reply	other threads:[~2026-02-03 15:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-22 14:56 [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] hsr: Implement more robust duplicate discard algorithm Felix Maurer
2026-01-22 14:56 ` [PATCH net-next v2 1/9] selftests: hsr: Add ping test for PRP Felix Maurer
2026-01-29 11:05   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-29 13:31     ` Felix Maurer
2026-01-29 15:21       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-29 17:44         ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-02 11:51           ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-02 15:55             ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-03 10:12               ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-03 11:55                 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-03 12:23                   ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-03 13:47                     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-03 15:07                       ` Felix Maurer
2026-01-22 14:56 ` [PATCH net-next v2 2/9] selftests: hsr: Check duplicates on HSR with VLAN Felix Maurer
2026-01-22 14:56 ` [PATCH net-next v2 3/9] selftests: hsr: Add tests for faulty links Felix Maurer
2026-01-22 14:56 ` [PATCH net-next v2 4/9] hsr: Implement more robust duplicate discard for PRP Felix Maurer
2026-01-28 16:38   ` Simon Horman
2026-01-28 18:37     ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-02 16:57       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-03 10:23         ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-03 11:57           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-03 12:42             ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-03 13:49               ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-03 15:11                 ` Felix Maurer
2026-01-29 13:29   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-29 15:30     ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-02  8:47   ` Steffen Lindner
2026-01-22 14:57 ` [PATCH net-next v2 5/9] selftests: hsr: Add tests for more link faults with PRP Felix Maurer
2026-01-29 13:32   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-02 11:30     ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-02 16:45       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-03 12:09         ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-03 14:49           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-03 15:32             ` Felix Maurer [this message]
2026-01-22 14:57 ` [PATCH net-next v2 6/9] hsr: Implement more robust duplicate discard for HSR Felix Maurer
2026-01-29 14:43   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-29 16:17     ` Felix Maurer
2026-01-29 18:01       ` Felix Maurer
2026-01-30 10:34         ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-02 17:53           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-03 11:49             ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-03 12:08               ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-02 17:11       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-02-03 11:08         ` Felix Maurer
2026-02-03 12:09           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-22 14:57 ` [PATCH net-next v2 7/9] selftests: hsr: Add more link fault tests " Felix Maurer
2026-01-22 14:57 ` [PATCH net-next v2 8/9] hsr: Update PRP duplicate discard KUnit test for new algorithm Felix Maurer
2026-01-29 15:12   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-29 16:19     ` Felix Maurer
2026-01-22 14:57 ` [PATCH net-next v2 9/9] MAINTAINERS: Assign hsr selftests to HSR Felix Maurer
2026-01-22 17:24 ` [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] hsr: Implement more robust duplicate discard algorithm Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-23  1:35 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-01-26  9:28   ` Felix Maurer
2026-01-29 15:29     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-29 16:29       ` Felix Maurer

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=aYIVCHouYi5h1dHU@thinkpad \
    --to=fmaurer@redhat.com \
    --cc=allison.henderson@oracle.com \
    --cc=antonio@openvpn.net \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=jkarrenpalo@gmail.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=petrm@nvidia.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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