[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] net: bonding: Fix transmit load balancing in balance-alb mode if specified by sysfs
On 08/09/17 13:10, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 08/09/17 05:06, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> Hi,
>>> On 7.09.2017 01:47, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>>>> Commit cbf5ecb30560 ("net: bonding: Fix transmit load balancing in
>>>> balance-alb mode") tried to fix transmit dynamic load balancing in
>>>> balance-alb mode, which wasn't working after commit 8b426dc54cf4
>>>> ("bonding: remove hardcoded value").
>>>> It turned out that my previous patch only fixed the case when
>>>> balance-alb was specified as bonding module parameter, and not when
>>>> balance-alb mode was set using /sys/class/net/*/bonding/mode (the most
>>>> common usage). In the latter case, tlb_dynamic_lb was set up according
>>>> to the default mode of the bonding interface, which happens to be
>>>> balance-rr.
>>>> This additional patch addresses this issue by setting up tlb_dynamic_lb
>>>> to 1 if "mode" is set to balance-alb through the sysfs interface.
>>>> I didn't add code to change tlb_balance_lb back to the default value for
>>>> other modes, because "mode" is usually set up only once during
>>>> initialization, and it's not worthwhile to change the static variable
>>>> bonding_defaults in bond_main.c to a global variable just for this
>>>> purpose.
>>>> Commit 8b426dc54cf4 also changes the value of tlb_dynamic_lb for
>>>> balance-tlb mode if it is set up using the sysfs interface. I didn't
>>>> change that behavior, because the value of tlb_balance_lb can be changed
>>>> using the sysfs interface for balance-tlb, and I didn't like changing
>>>> the default value back and forth for balance-tlb.
>>>> As for balance-alb, /sys/class/net/*/bonding/tlb_balance_lb cannot be
>>>> written to. However, I think balance-alb with tlb_dynamic_lb set to 0
>>>> is not an intended usage, so there is little use making it writable at
>>>> this moment.
>>>> Fixes: 8b426dc54cf4 ("bonding: remove hardcoded value")
>>>> Reported-by: Reinis Rozitis <>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <>
>>>> Cc: # v4.12+
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c | 3 +++
>>>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>> I don't believe this to be the right solution, hardcoding it like this
>>> changes user-visible behaviour. The issue is that if someone configured
>>> it to be 0 in tlb mode, suddenly it will become 1 and will silently
>>> override their config if they switch the mode to alb. Also it robs users
>>> from their choice.
>>> If you think this should be settable in ALB mode, then IMO you should
>>> edit tlb_dynamic_lb option's unsuppmodes and allow it to be set in ALB.
>>> That would also be consistent with how it's handled in TLB mode.
>> No, I don't think tlb_dynamic_lb should be settable in balance-alb at
>> this point. All the current commits regarding tlb_dynamic_lb are for
>> balance-tlb mode, so I don't think balance-alb with tlb_dynamic_lb set
>> to 0 is an intended usage.
>>> Going back and looking at your previous fix I'd argue that it is also
>>> wrong, you should've removed the mode check altogether to return the
>>> original behaviour where the dynamic_lb is set to 1 (enabled) by
>>> default and then ALB mode would've had it, of course that would've left
>>> the case of setting it to 0 in TLB mode and switching to ALB, but that
>>> is a different issue.
>> Maybe balance-alb shouldn't be dependent on tlb_dynamic_lb.
>> tlb_dynamic_lb is referenced in the following functions.
>> + bond_do_alb_xmit() -- Used by both balance-tlb and balance-alb
>> + bond_tlb_xmit() -- Only used by balance-tlb
>> + bond_open() -- Used by both balance-tlb and balance-alb
>> + bond_check_params() -- Used during module initialization
>> + bond_fill_info() -- Used to get/set value
>> + bond_option_tlb_dynamic_lb_set() -- Used to get/set value
>> + bonding_show_tlb_dynamic_lb() -- Used to get/set value
>> + bond_is_nondyn_tlb() -- Only referenced if balance-tlb mode
>> The following untested patch adds code to make balance-alb work as if
>> tlb_dynamic_lb==1 for the functions which affect balance-alb mode. It
>> also reverts my previous patch.
>> What do you think about this approach?
>> ---
>> Kosuke TATSUKAWA | 1st Platform Software Division
>> | NEC Solution Innovators
>> |
> Logically the approach looks good, that being said it adds unnecessary tests in
> the fast path, why not just something like the patch below ? That only leaves the
> problem if it is zeroed in TLB and switched to ALB mode, and that is a one line
> fix to unsuppmodes just allow it to be set for that specific case. The below
> returns the default behaviour before the commit in your Fixes tag.

Actually I'm fine with your approach, too. It will fix this regardless of the
value of tlb_dynamic_lb which sounds good to me for the price of a test in
the fast path.

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-08 12:14    [W:0.135 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site