Am 03.09.2015 um 17:05 schrieb Jay Vosburgh:...
Uwe Koziolek <uwe.koziolek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:41 PM +0200, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:51:27PM +0200, Uwe Koziolek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:14PM +0200, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Uwe Koziolek <uwe.koziolek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I probably should have asked this in the beginning, but at whatOnly 500 msecs arp interval is used, no other values are checked.
range of arp_interval values does the problem manifest? If it's a race
condition with the switch update, I'd expect that only very small
arp_interval values would be affected.
Also, your proposed comment wraps past 80 columns.
-J
Wraps in patch are now removed.
diff -up ./drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c.orig
./drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
--- ./drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c.orig 2015-08-30 20:34:09.000000000
+0200
+++ ./drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c 2015-09-04 11:59:05.755897182 +0200
@@ -2795,6 +2795,17 @@ static bool bond_ab_arp_probe(struct bon
return should_notify_rtnl;
}
+ /* sometimes the forwarding tables of the switches are not updated
+ * fast enough. the first arp response after a slave change is received
+ * on the wrong slave.
+ * the arp requests will be retried 2 times on the same slave
+ */
+
+ if (bond_time_in_interval(bond, curr_arp_slave->last_link_up, 2)) {
+ bond_arp_send_all(bond, curr_arp_slave);
+ return should_notify_rtnl;
+ }
+
bond_set_slave_inactive_flags(curr_arp_slave, BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_LATER);
bond_for_each_slave_rcu(bond, slave, iter) {