Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6 - bisected

From: Jesper Krogh
Date: Fri Feb 27 2009 - 15:07:55 EST


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).

[ 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.



--
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/