lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net V3] bonding: send igmp report for its master
Date
Weiping Pan <panweiping3@gmail.com> wrote:

>Liang Zheng(lzheng@redhat.com) found that in the following topo,
>bonding does not send igmp report when we trigger a fail-over of bonding.
>
>eth0--
> |-- bond0 -- br0
>eth1--
>
>modprobe bonding mode=1 miimon=100 resend_igmp=10
>ifconfig bond0 up
>ifenslave bond0 eth0 eth1
>
>brctl addbr br0
>ifconfig br0 192.168.100.2/24 up
>brctl addif br0 bond0
>
>Add 192.168.100.2(br0) into a multicast group, like 224.10.10.10,
>then trigger a fali-over in bonding.
>You can see that parameter "resend_igmp" does not work.
>
>The reason is that when we add br0 into a multicast group,
>it does not propagate multicast knowledge down to its ports.
>
>If we choose to propagate multicast knowledge down to all ports for bridge,
>then we have to track every change that is done to bridge, and keep a backup
>for all ports. It is hard to track, I think.
>
>Instead I choose to modify bonding to send igmp report for its master.
>
>Changelog:
>V2: correct comments
>V3: move this check into bond_resend_igmp_join_requests()
>
>Signed-off-by: Weiping Pan <panweiping3@gmail.com>
>---
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>index 435984a..037fdd3 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>@@ -766,18 +766,26 @@ static void __bond_resend_igmp_join_requests(struct net_device *dev)
> */
> static void bond_resend_igmp_join_requests(struct bonding *bond)
> {
>- struct net_device *vlan_dev;
>+ struct net_device *bond_dev, *vlan_dev, *master_dev;
> struct vlan_entry *vlan;
>
> read_lock(&bond->lock);
>
>+ bond_dev = bond->dev;
>+
> /* rejoin all groups on bond device */
>- __bond_resend_igmp_join_requests(bond->dev);
>+ __bond_resend_igmp_join_requests(bond_dev);
>+
>+ /* rejoin all groups on its master */
>+ master_dev = bond_dev->master;
>+ if (unlikely(master_dev)) {
>+ __bond_resend_igmp_join_requests(master_dev);
>+ }

Will this do the right thing if the master is not a bridge?
Granted, right now the only other possible master is a team (since
bonding will not enslave itself), but is this generically safe and
desirable for any possible master_dev?

-J

> /* rejoin all groups on vlan devices */
> list_for_each_entry(vlan, &bond->vlan_list, vlan_list) {
> rcu_read_lock();
>- vlan_dev = __vlan_find_dev_deep(bond->dev,
>+ vlan_dev = __vlan_find_dev_deep(bond_dev,
> vlan->vlan_id);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> if (vlan_dev)
>--
>1.7.4.4

---
-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-16 04:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site