On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:53:28AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > В Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:25:08 +0100 > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> пишет: > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:52:00PM +0000, Rauta, Alin wrote: > > > > Yes, but the updates need to be done for all links and I'm not sure > > > > adding this is a good thing. > > > > I'm now having 64 links on the switch and I need the failure detection > > > > in networkd to be quite fast because however even now it's probably > > > > slower due to evaluating dynamically the BindCarrier strings when > > > > comparing this with the previous solution with an UFD group monitoring > > > > some interfaces and with some internal counters knowing exactly when to > > > > issue "link_down" for an interface. So adding "bound_by" and "bound_to" > > > > makes the solution even slower. > > > > > > > How many times per second will you be avaluating this? > > > Each time an event happens: a link appears, disappears, changes flags or > > > names. > > Yes, I know the causes. I'm asking how often they can realisticly occur. > > > > You misunderstand. It is not how often they occur but how fast reaction > is. When (final) uplink goes down we want to bring dependent interfaces > down as soon as possible. Well... I don't think any string processing inside of networkd is going to have a measurable impact. Things like process scheduling are always going to trump that.
Not that I'm opposed to making the implementation computationally faster. Just that reaction speed is a bad justification. The code should be simple and clear, this is more important. > > > > Besides this, having only one function > > > > "sd_network_link_get_carrier_bound_to" makes also sense because only > > > > the behavior of "bond_to" links is controlled by this feature. > > > > "bound_by" means almost nothing for an interface. A tool like > > > > "networkctl" may take into account to display only the "bound_to" links > > > > because that's what's relevant. The fact that "networkctl" displays > > > > both "bound_to" and "bound_by" it's a good thing, but it doesn't mean > > > > each tool should do that. > > > > > > > If a link goes down, isn't the "bound_by" list useful to look at links > > > > which need to be checked and potentiallly brought down? > > > It can be useful, that's why "networkctl" has the updates, but are > > > talking about the showing functionality or about the run-time "up-down" > > > game between interfaces ? > > > > The latter. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
