On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 11:02:50AM +0100, Hans Schillstrom wrote: > > On Saturday, November 06, 2010 01:56:14 Simon Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 09:08:06PM +0100, Hans Schillstrom wrote: > > > Hello again > > > On Sunday 31 October 2010 01:16:02 Simon Horman wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 05:55:32PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > > [ snip ] > > > > > > > > > > - What is the right thing to do in ip_vs_conn_fill_param_sync > > > > > when ip_vs_pe_get() does not find PE? May be to drop > > > > > connection? May be in ip_vs_process_message() we should > > > > > use one pointer for end of message (it was 'p' before now), > > > > > so that we can skip connections, for example, when some > > > > > mandatory parameter as PE is not supported. We should not > > > > > drop the whole sync message. When message is invalid it > > > > > should be dropped but lack of support should not hurt > > > > > other connections. In the case for PE may be > > > > > ip_vs_conn_fill_param_sync() should return 1 if > > > > > PE is unknown (ip_vs_pe_get). Then caller will continue > > > > > with next connection if result > 0 or will drop message > > > > > if result < 0 as in current patch. May be the pe_name > > > > > presence should be the first check in > > > > > ip_vs_conn_fill_param_sync. > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree with this. > > > > > > > > > Also note that p->pe is > > > > > pointer without reference while called in ip_vs_sched_persist. > > > > > In our case with ip_vs_conn_fill_param_sync we should > > > > > put this reference after calling ip_vs_proc_conn(). > > > > > May be ip_vs_find_dest should check that p->pe matches > > > > > svc->pe. ip_vs_try_bind_dest should provide p->pe too > > > > > for this check. But we must somehow ignore new conns > > > > > with PE if they don't have cp->dest (service) because > > > > > it is risky to attach PE that is not held by svc. > > > > > It is bad that the check for p->pe is before > > > > > ip_vs_find_dest. > > > > > > > > I have a patch, "IPVS: Add persistence engine to connection entry" > > > > that attaches the pe to the connection rather than the dest. > > > > In this case, if pe is NULL, then the connection doesn't use > > > > pe, which is fine. If its non-NULL, its there so there is no > > > > problem in that case either. > > > > > > > > I think this resolves the issue that you raise. > > > > > > There is a little Ooops with this, a locking problem. > > > We are in a local_bh_disable() when trying to load a module... > > > > > > in the sync_thread() > > > ... > > > local_bh_disable(); > > > ip_vs_process_message(tinfo->buf, len); > > > local_bh_enable(); > > > > > > When ip_vs_process_message() get pe_data it calls > > > -> ip_vs_conn_fill_param_sync() and it calls > > > --> ip_vs_pe_getbyname() and it might call > > > ----> request_module(..) > > > > > > My suggestion is to avoid modul loading by calling "__ip_vs_pe_getbyname()" instead, > > > and if it fails just drop that single sync_conn. > > > > I wonder if we could just remove the modular aspect of persistence engines > > as there is currently only one module and no plans on the drawing board > > for any more at this time. That is, compile ip_vs_pe_sip directly > > into ip_vs.ko > > It's OK for me, and in the long run try to break apart the big lock. > (or use netlink for backup instead) > > > > > I'm happy to make a patch for that. > Thanks, > can you send it to me since the backup will depend upon this patch ? Sure, I'll get a patch together. > Another silly question, > Have any of you guys seen incompleet packets in ip_vs_in() ? > When I was testing SIP there was no hit for Call-Id and the reason was only a part (88 bytes) came in to ip_vs.. > skb->len shows 513 bytes but 397 bytes was missing.... > > The packet was comming in on eth0 and out to the RS on eth1 > Using tcpdump on the sending machines and the Receiving RS shows that > - eth0 all 513 bytes was sent > - eth1 all 513 bytes was received at the RS.... :-? > > and then the big Boss was calling and I had to go home :-( > > I guess that I have to dig into this on Monday > Btw with 2.6.32 it works I haven't observed that behaviour but it would most certainly break ip_vs_pe_sip. -- 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
