RE: [PATCH net-next] hv_netvsc: Increase delay for RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE

[Haiyang Zhang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov [mailto:vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:06 AM
> To: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; KY Srinivasan
> <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; olaf@xxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> driverdev-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] hv_netvsc: Increase delay for
> RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE
> 
> Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov [mailto:vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 8:06 AM
> >> To: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; KY Srinivasan
> >> <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; olaf@xxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> >> driverdev-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] hv_netvsc: Increase delay for
> >> RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE
> >>
> >> Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > We simulates a link down period for
> RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE
> >> message to
> >> > trigger DHCP renew. User daemons may need multiple seconds to
> trigger
> >> the
> >> > link down event. (e.g. ifplugd: 5sec, network-manager: 4sec.) So update
> >> > this link down period to 10 sec to properly trigger DHCP renew.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I probably don't follow: why do we need sucha a delay? If (with real
> >> hardware) you plug network cable out and in one second you plug it in
> >> you'll get DHCP renewed, right?
> >>
> >> When I introduced RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE handling by
> >> emulating a
> >> pair of up/down events I put 2 second delay to make link_watch happy
> (as
> >> we only handle 1 event per second there) but 10 seconds sounds to much
> >> to me.
> >
> > In the test on Hyper-V, our software on host side  wants to trigger DHCP
> > renew by sending only a RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE message to
> > a guest without physically unplug the cable. But, this message didn't trigger
> > DHCP renew within 2 seconds. The VM is Centos 7.1 using
> Networkmanager,
> > which needs 4 seconds after link down to renew IP. Some daemon, like
> > ifplugd, needs 5 sec to renew. That's why we increase the simulated link
> > down time for RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE message.
> 
> Yes, I understand the motivation but sorry if I was unclear with my
> question. I meant to say that with physical network adapters it's
> possible to trigger same two events by plugging your cable out and then
> plugging it back in and it is certailnly doable in less than 10
> seconds. NetworkManager or whoever is supposed to handle these events
> and we don't really care how fast -- I think that 4 or 5 seconds
> mentioned above is just an observation.

(forgot mailing lists in my last reply.... re-sending...)

Our test failed (i.e. not triggering DHCP renew) with existing 2sec delay. According 
to the ifplugd man page, it ignores link down time <5sec:
  http://linux.die.net/man/8/ifplugd
    -d | --delay-down= SECS Specify delay for deconfiguring interface (default: 5)

Networkmanager also has a waiting period (4sec).

Thanks,
- Haiyang