Message-ID: <1326676534.13517.3.camel@minggr>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:15:34 +0800
From:	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git patches] libata updates for 3.3

On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 09:41 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 01/14/2012 12:21 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Jeff Garzik<jeff@...zik.org>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Summary (very little excitement at all this time):
> >>
> >> 0) Will play around with git signed tags with the next update.
> >>
> >> 1) PM improvements, including runtime suspend/resume work
> >
> > Hmm. I don't know if this comes from the PM improvements or even this
> > particular pull, but links that aren't connected are *really* slow.
> >
> > Annoyingly so.
> >
> > My Macbook Air that I finally can resume reliably again used to come
> > back almost immediately from resume. No longer. And the reason seems
> > to be this:
> >
> >   [  243.306149] ata_piix 0000:00:1f.2: setting latency timer to 64
> >   [  243.306180] bcma: Found rev 6 PMU (capabilities 0x108C2606)
> >   [  246.579648] ata1.01: failed to resume link (SControl 0)
> >   [  246.735472] ata1.00: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)
> >   [  246.735485] ata1.01: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 0)
> >   [  246.743632] ata1.00: ACPI cmd ef/03:46:00:00:00:a0 (SET FEATURES)
> > filtered out
> >   [  246.744353] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
> >   [  246.744537] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Starting disk
> >   [  247.769806] ata2.00: failed to resume link (SControl 0)
> >   [  248.796207] ata2.01: failed to resume link (SControl 0)
> >   [  248.807665] ata2.00: SATA link down (SStatus 4 SControl 0)
> >   [  248.807681] ata2.01: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 0)
> >   [  248.808338] PM: resume of devices complete after 5511.027 msecs
> >   [  248.882074] PM: Finishing wakeup.
> >
> > Notice the basically five-second timeout all basically for "failed to
> > resume link: for things that didn't have anything connected to them
> > anyway.
> >
> > This is a bog-standard Intel controller, there's nothing odd there.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure this used to be much faster, but I haven't bisected
> > any of it (and with all the problems I had with resume both due to
> > wireless and MCE, I really wouldn't want to even try).
> >
> > Taking 5.5 seconds to come back from suspend-to-ram really is too
> > long. Not *all* of it is the SATA part, but a lot of it is.
> >
> > For ATA suspend/resume, could we perhaps only resume the ports that
> > *used* to have something on them? And then, if somebody has plugged
> > something into the others, not consider that a resume thing at all,
> > but a hotplug thing that happens *after* the resume?
> >
> > If it takes five seconds to notice new hardware after a resume, nobody
> > cares. But the disk we had before obviously needs to get resumed.. But
> > it does seem like it's the "no link" part that takes long.
> 
> We definitely notice new hardware after a resume, but you're right -- it 
> should not take that long to work through ports that are empty.
> 
> Will take a look tomorrow (kid->doctor+relatives today, uff) at the most 
> recent PM push; my quick testing did not show any problems, but 
> suspend/resume varies widely across hardware platforms.  I think I might 
> even have a MacBook I can test.  Apple platforms test to be weird too...  ;)

I just did a quick test with latest git head(122804e) and didn't find
the problem either.

I'll test other machines.

Lin Ming

> 
> 	Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


--
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