[ Resent with a reasonable subject and to lvs-devel :) ]
Hello!
I was noticing a significant amount of what seems/seemed to be
destination lists with multiple entries with the lblcr LVS algorithm.
While tracking it down, I think I stumbled over a mistake. In
ip_vs_lblcr_full_check(), it appears the time check logic is reversed:
for (i=0, j=tbl->rover; i<IP_VS_LBLCR_TAB_SIZE; i++) {
j = (j + 1) & IP_VS_LBLCR_TAB_MASK;
write_lock(&svc->sched_lock);
list_for_each_entry_safe(en, nxt, &tbl->bucket[j], list) {
if (time_after(en->lastuse+sysctl_ip_vs_lblcr_expiration,
now))
continue;
ip_vs_lblcr_free(en);
atomic_dec(&tbl->entries);
}
write_unlock(&svc->sched_lock);
}
Shouldn't this be "time_before"? It seems that it currently nukes all
recently-used entries every time this function is called, which seems to
be every 30 minutes, rather than removing the not-recently-used ones.
If my reading is correct, this patch should fix it. Am I missing
something?
Cheers,
Simon-
diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c
index 715b57f..937743f 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_lblcr.c
@@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ static inline void ip_vs_lblcr_full_check(struct ip_vs_service *svc)
write_lock(&svc->sched_lock);
list_for_each_entry_safe(en, nxt, &tbl->bucket[j], list) {
- if (time_after(en->lastuse+sysctl_ip_vs_lblcr_expiration,
+ if (time_before(en->lastuse+sysctl_ip_vs_lblcr_expiration,
now))
continue;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
