Jay Vosburgh wrote:

Jesper Krogh [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Jay Vosburgh wrote:

quoted

Jesper Krogh [off-list ref] wrote:
[...]

quoted

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 [off-list ref]
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.

quoted

[   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