linux-kernel - Re: sd_resume redundant? [was: [PATCH] libata: implement ata_wait_after

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1345.81.207.0.53.1179671262.squirrel@secure.samage.net>
Date:	Sun, 20 May 2007 16:27:42 +0200 (CEST)
From:	"Indan Zupancic" <indan@....nu>
To:	"Tejun Heo" <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	"Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, jeff@...zik.org,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	garyhade@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: sd_resume redundant?  [was: [PATCH] libata: implement      
     ata_wait_after_reset()]

On Sun, May 20, 2007 11:54, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Indan Zupancic wrote:
>> On Sat, May 19, 2007 21:04, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>> Yeah, if SCR registers are accessible, 0xff doesn't indicate the device
>>>> isn't there, so the whole skip-0xff logic probably shouldn't apply in
>>>> such cases, but we can also achieve pretty good result by just making
>>>> the first reset tries a bit more aggressive.
>>> So, here's the patch.
>>>
>>> Paul, can you please test this patch without the previous patch?  Indan,
>>> this should reduce the resume delay.  Please test.  But you'll still
>>> feel some added delay compared to 2.6.20 due to the mentioned
>>> suspend/resume change.
>>
>> This removed the COMRESET errors indeed, and with sd_resume()
>> disabled everything is speedy again (2s or so. Still a desktop pc).
>> I didn't try with sd_resume enabled.
>
> Can you try to measure with sd_resume in place?

[    2.173366] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Starting disk
[    2.475422] ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
[    5.478403] ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310)
[    5.481928] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 234441648, hpa_sectors = 234441648
[    5.485904] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 234441648, hpa_sectors = 234441648
[    5.485913] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
[    5.505109] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 234441648 512-byte hardware sectors (120034 MB)
[    5.505461] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
[    5.505465] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
[    5.505612] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or
FUA
...
[    6.157259] Restarting tasks ... done.


And with echo 0 > /sys/class/scsi_disk/0\:0\:0\:0/manage_start_stop:

[    2.476476] ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
...
[    2.825479] Restarting tasks ... done.
...
[    5.022076] ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310)
[    5.025605] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 234441648, hpa_sectors = 234441648
[    5.028594] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 234441648, hpa_sectors = 234441648
[    5.028606] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
[    5.028720] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 234441648 512-byte hardware sectors (120034 MB)
[    5.028767] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
[    5.028773] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
[    5.028831] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or
FUA

So over all it takes half a second longer to detect the disk, but because everything waits on it,
it takes more than three seconds longer to resume.

Setting manage_start_stop to 0 fixes it and is good enough for me, I didn't notice anything bad yet
because of the unmanaged stop. Implementing background spin up will fix it too.


>> Everything seems to work fine without sd_resume(), so why is it needed?
>
> Because not all disks spin up without being told to do so and like it or
> not spinning disks up on resume is the default behavior.  As I wrote in
> the other reply, it would be worthwhile to make it configurable.

Not even after they receive a read command? Ugh.

Greeting,

Indan


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/