[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <469CCFBD.4030708@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:18:37 +0400
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: Rogier Wolff <R.E.Wolff@...Wizard.nl>
Cc: Mark Lord <liml@....ca>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@...ebsd.org>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Make the IDE DMA timeout modifiable
Hello.
Rogier Wolff wrote:
>>> Ah, that makes sense -- during PIO interrupts happen a lot more often.
>>>20 secs still seem to be too much.
>>I don't think so, even for modern drives.
>>Figure 8-10 seconds max for spin-up,
>>plus 6-9 seconds to do a sector re-assignment
>>or retries on a bad block (a measured *real-life* value).
>>That adds up to 14-19 seconds, so 20 seconds is probably good.
>>Still, this does need to be adjustable for faster (CF) devices,
>>and slower (optical/tape) devices, rather than just a single
>>set of fixed timeout values.
> In real life, with real bad blocks on real harddrives, some harddrives
> take more than the DMA TIMEOUT time to read a single block, even without
> having to spin up.
Yeah, "shit happens".
> The current code then resets the drive, on which the drive reports
> "busy, not ready for command", and things go downhill from there.
You are clearly mixing things: this message is a result of retrying
command in PIO mode (that fails because the drive is still busy), and then the
drives are actually reset. If they keep being busy *after* that, all I'd say
is dump them ASAP. ;-)
> Roger.
MBR, Sergei
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists