Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6 - bisected

[Jesper Krogh]

Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Jesper Krogh <jesper@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> > > Jesper Krogh <jesper@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > The offending commit seems to be:
> > > >
> > > > A test with a fresh 2.6.29-rc6 revealed that the problem has been fixed
> > > > subsequently.. but still exists in 2.6.27-newest.  (havent tested
> > > > 2.6.28-newest yet).
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas of what the "fixing" commit is .. or should that also be
> > > > bisected?
> > > 	I went back and looked at your earlier mail.  Since you're using
> > > 802.3ad mode, my first guess would be this commit:
> > >
> > > commit fd989c83325cb34795bc4d4aa6b13c06f90eac99
> > > Author: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date:   Tue Nov 4 17:51:16 2008 -0800
> > >
> > >     bonding: alternate agg selection policies for 802.3ad
> > That didn't do it.. I applied it to 2.6.27.19 but it didnt make that work.
> > dmesg | grep bond (2.6.27.19 + above patch).
>
> 	That was the only real functional change to 802.3ad, there are a
> lot of other commits, but they're all style or cleanup sorts of things.
>
> > [   13.643301] bonding: MII link monitoring set to 100 ms
> > [   13.730455] bonding: bond0: enslaving eth0 as a backup interface with
> > an up link.
> > [   13.781934] bonding: bond0: enslaving eth1 as a backup interface with
> > an up link.
> > [   13.904665] bonding: bond0: enslaving eth2 as a backup interface with a
> > down link.
> > [   16.945264] bonding: bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth2.
> > [   75.040290] bond0: no IPv6 routers present
> >
> > dmesg | grep bond (2.6.29-rc6)
> >
> > $ ssh quad02 dmesg | grep bond
> > [   27.437877] bonding: MII link monitoring set to 100 ms
> > [   27.445246] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): bond0: link is not ready
> > [   27.493260] bonding: bond0: enslaving eth0 as a backup interface with a
> > down link.
> > [   27.521397] bonding: bond0: enslaving eth1 as a backup interface with a
> > down link.
> > [   27.542332] bonding: bond0: Warning: No 802.3ad response from the link
> > partner for any adapters in the bond
> > [   27.611509] bonding: bond0: enslaving eth2 as a backup interface with a
> > down link.
> > [   27.617017] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): bond0: link becomes ready
> > [   27.642330] bonding: bond0: Warning: No 802.3ad response from the link
> > partner for any adapters in the bond
> > [   30.042501] bonding: bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth1.
> > [   30.142505] bonding: bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth0.
> > [   30.742547] bonding: bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth2.
> > [   37.875044] bond0: no IPv6 routers present
> >
> > I just tested 2.6.28.7.. it still broken. So the fix probably has to be
> > somewhere in the post 2.6.28 sets.
>
> 	It looks like the above two tests are on different machines, or
> were at least done with different network cards.  Is that the case?

There is 12 Sun Fire X2200 in the rack, they are fully identical (some 
with a small difference in memory configuration as the only difference.

So yes, different machines, but same hardware (bought in the same 
shipment, etc. etc).

> 	I'm just wondering if what you're seeing is somehow tied to the
> network devices' respective autonegotiation speeds, or some difference
> in the device drivers.  The first dmesg looks to have one slow (3 sec)
> and two fast ones; the second dmesg looks to have all slow devices.
>
> 	Have you tried the kernels the other way around (the first
> kernel on the second machine, and vice versa)?

Yes, I've randomly picked a machine in the set to do the test, they all 
falls out as "predicted".

> 	I'll compile 2.6.28.7 here and see if it works for me.



Jesper
--
Jesper
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/