[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <477D9C00.8060600@tlinx.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:37:52 -0800
From: Linda Walsh <lkml@...nx.org>
To: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re:Believed resolved: SATA kern-buffRd read slow: based on promise
driver bug
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> Linda Walsh writes:
> > Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > Linda Walsh wrote:
> > >>>> read rate began falling; at 128k block-reads-at-a-time or larger, it
> > >>>> drops below 20MB/s (only on buffered SATA).
> >
> > But more importantly -- I notice a chronic error message associate
> > with this drive that may be causing some or all of the problem:
> > ---
> > ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x2
> > ata1.00: port_status 0x20080000
> > ata1.00: cmd c8/00:10:30:06:03/00:00:00:00:00/e0 tag 0 cdb 0x0 data 8192 in
> > res 50/00:00:3f:06:03/00:00:00:00:00/e0 Emask 0x2 (HSM violation)
> > ata1: limiting SATA link speed to 1.5 Gbps
>
>
> Looks like the Promise ASIC SG bug. Apply
> <http://user.it.uu.se/~mikpe/linux/patches/sata_promise/patch-sata_promise-1-asic-sg-bug-fix-v3-2.6.23>
> and let us know if things improve.
>
> /Mikael
>
---
Yep! Hope that's making it into a patch soon or, at least 2.6.24.
Kernel buffered
I seem to remember reading about some problems with Promise SATA & ACPI.
Does this address that or is that a separate issue? (Am using no-acpi for
now, but would like to try acpi again if it may be fixed (last time I tried
it with this card, "sdb" went "offline" (once it unmounted itself and
refused to be remounted (no error...just nothing), and another it stayed
mounted, but gave an I/O Error...so have been using no-acpi since).
An ACPI error in bootup said:
ACPI Exception (utmutex-0263): AE_BAD_PARAMETER, Thread EFFC2000 could
not acquire Mutex [3] [20070126]
Is the above bug mentioned/discussed in the linux-ide archives? That
and I'd like to find out why TCQ/NCQ doesn't work with the Seagate drives --
my guess, since they say queuedepth of 0/32, is that they are blacklisted
as being drives that don't follow normal protocol or implement their
own proprietary extensions? Sigh. Really a lame move (if that's the case)
for Seagate, considering they usage they could likely get in server
configs. Maybe they want to push their SCSI/SAS drives?
BTW, can SATA have DPO or FUA or are those limited to SCSI?
Would it be a desirable future addition to remove the
"doesn't support DPO or FUA" error message" on SATA drives if they are
specific to SCSI?
--
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