lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.6.29 regression: ATA bus errors on resume
    On 05/26/2009 06:58 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
    > Hello, Niel.
    >
    > Niel Lambrechts wrote:
    >
    >> I've tested all of the kernels I have again since 2.6.29.4 also came out
    >> just recently. I did a hibernate/resume for each in the console, then
    >> repeated the same in X, then continued to the next kernel.
    >>
    >> The 2.6.29.4 log is much larger, since some other badness happened there
    >> - there is a large kernel trace in there as my first X hibernation
    >> attempt failed and came back to X after a few seconds. The system seemed
    >> functional, it did not keep generating kernel messages - when I then
    >> retried a hibernate it worked, along with the resume. Another unrelated
    >> bug perhaps?
    >>
    >> As for "hard resetting link" messages, they seemed to always happen
    >> under X the times I tried it.
    >>
    >> Kernel EXT4-errors? Console:ata1 reset? Console:ata2-reset? X:ata1 reset? X:ata2 reset?
    >> 2.6.28.10 No no yes yes no
    >> 2.6.29.4* No no no no no
    >> 2.6.29.4** No - - yes no
    >> 2.6.30-rc6 Yes - - yes no
    >> 2.6.30-rc6 No no no yes no
    >>
    >> * Xorg hibernation attempt failed.
    >> * Xorg Second hibernation attempt (no extra reboot)
    >>
    >> I also did a side by side comparison of the messages I have for
    >> 2.6.30-rc6, the one with EXT4 errors I reported on yesterday, and
    >> another one that worked just fine tonight. I stripped all time-stamps
    >> and some pulseaudio messages from the bad one and attached them here,
    >> and also saved the full messages for each kernel to
    >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13017 .
    >>
    >> Since analysing the code-path is still a bit beyond me, I'll leave you
    >> with a little summary of the differences I notice.
    >>
    >> A = 2.6.30-rc6 (EXT4 clean)
    >> B = 2.6.30-rc6 (EXT4 errors triggered)
    >>
    > Duplicate PHY events are likely to be dependent on timing and
    > non-deterministic. The ext4 corrupting or not depends on whether a
    > request with failfast set was in-flight at the time of the second PHY
    > event, which again is dependent on timing. At any rate, this looks
    > like a problem of ext4 (or something between ext4 and the driver). It
    > either shouldn't issue failfast command or should take appropriate
    > recovery action if it does. It would be really nice if you can give a
    > shot at ext3.

    Urgh. My root file-system is mounted with extents on, I would have to
    re-install entirely.

    I'm wondering why no one else is complaining, or whether the problem is
    limited to ICH9M/M-E controllers with EXT4 or a certain type of
    hard-drive. The laptop is a Lenovo W500 (fairly similar to T500), so
    maybe not a lot of people with this type of controller is using EXT4 yet.

    Anyhow, I think Theodore may have ruled this out as a EXT4 problem
    already (I first copied him) so I'm not sure what to do now, it will
    take some strong will (and even more time) for me to re-install EXT3. I
    just shouldn't have to, dammit. :-p

    Regards,
    Niel


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-26 07:47    [W:0.028 / U:60.096 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site