Re: [Bug 214523] New: RDMA Mellanox RoCE drivers are unresponsive to ARP updates during a reconnect
From: Haakon Bugge <hidden>
Date: 2021-09-27 13:32:45
On 27 Sep 2021, at 15:10, Jason Gunthorpe [off-list ref] wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 08:55:19PM +0800, Mark Zhang wrote:quoted
On 9/27/2021 8:24 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:quoted
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 03:09:44PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:quoted
On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 05:36:01PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:quoted
Hi Leon- Thanks for the suggestion! More below.quoted
On Sep 26, 2021, at 4:02 AM, Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref] wrote: On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 03:34:32PM +0000, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:quoted
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214523 Bug ID: 214523 Summary: RDMA Mellanox RoCE drivers are unresponsive to ARP updates during a reconnect Product: Drivers Version: 2.5 Kernel Version: 5.14 Hardware: All OS: Linux Tree: Mainline Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P1 Component: Infiniband/RDMA Assignee: drivers_infiniband-rdma@kernel-bugs.osdl.org Reporter: kolga@netapp.com Regression: No RoCE RDMA connection uses CMA protocol to establish an RDMA connection. During the setup the code uses hard coded timeout/retry values. These values are used for when Connect Request is not being answered to to re-try the request. During the re-try attempts the ARP updates of the destination server are ignored. Current timeout values lead to 4+minutes long attempt at connecting to a server that no longer owns the IP since the ARP update happens. The ask is to make the timeout/retry values configurable via procfs or sysfs. This will allow for environments that use RoCE to reduce the timeouts to a more reasonable values and be able to react to the ARP updates faster. Other CMA users (eg IB or others) can continue to use existing values.I would rather not add a user-facing tunable. The fabric should be better at detecting addressing changes within a reasonable time. It would be helpful to provide a history of why the ARP timeout is so lax -- do certain ULPs rely on it being long?I don't know about ULPs and ARPs, but how to calculate TimeWait is described in the spec. Regarding tunable, I agree. Because it needs to be per-connection, most likely not many people in the world will success to configure it properly.Maybe we should be disconnecting the cm_id if a gratituous ARP changes the MAC address? The cm_id is surely broken after that event right?Is there an event on gratuitous ARP? And we also need to notify user-space application, right?I think there is a net notifier for this?
NETEVENT_NEIGH_UPDATE may be? Thxs, Håkon
Userspace will see it via the CM event we'll need to trigger. Jason