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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans