lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git patches] libata updates for 3.3
On 01/14/2012 12:21 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Jeff Garzik<jeff@garzik.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... ;)

Jeff







\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-15 15:43    [W:1.599 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site