lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: libata/sata_nv latency on NVIDIA CK804 [was Re: AMD64 X2 lost ticks on PM timer]
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> in this particular case there's only very simple (and non-IO)
> instructions in that codepath (no loops either), except for
> ata_bmdma_status() which does IO ops: so i agree with you that the most
> likely candidate for the delay is the readb() or the inb() in
> ata_bdma_status().
>
> I'm wondering which one of the two. inb()s are known to be horrible on
> some systems - but i've never seen them take 16 milliseconds. If it's
> the inb(), then that could also involve SMM mode and IO


ata_bmdma_status() is just a single IO read, and even 1ms is highly
improbable.

I'd look elsewhere. There are a ton of udelay() calls in the legacy PCI
IDE BMDMA code paths (sata_nv uses these), so I'm not surprised there is
latency in general, in a libata+sata_nv configuration. Status checks
for example (ata_busy_wait in libata.h) are basically

while (ioreadX() != condition)
udelay(10)
That delay is mainly a "don't pound too hard on the hardware" delay. If
the hardware is really slow completing a command after signalling
completion, you'll potentially wait up to 1000*10 us in some cases. And
there are other delays, such as the per-command ndelay() plus ioread().

Welcome to the wonderful world of IDE.

Jeff


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-15 23:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans