Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:13:12 +0100 (MET) | From | Gerard Roudier <> | Subject | Re: Blacklist for DPES-* |
| |
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > > > > I found following in patch-2.2.0-pre7: > > > > +{"IBM","DPES-","*", BLIST_NOTQ | BLIST_NOLUN}, > > > > Vendor: IBM Model: DPES-31080 !t Rev: S31K > > Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02 > > Detected scsi disk sda at scsi0, channel 0, id 0, lun 0 > > ncr53c810-0-<0,0>: tagged command queue depth set to 8 > > > > I'm wondering why the disk above works with tagged command queuing since ages. > > In the pre-7 patch it was only for the DPES-31080, rev S31Q, but now > > it's for every DPES drive (or do I misunderstand something ?). Who thinks > > it's a good idea to blacklist every DPES drive ? > > I did. I don't know about Gerard's driver, but mine specifically does print > out whenever a device that we set up as tagged queueing capable rejects part > of our tagged queueing operation. That's what prompted that change. As for > the version issue, most drives in a single family respond identically. If > Gerard can confirm that your drive was actually using tagged queueing and that > the driver didn't silently disable it, then we can change this around.
The ncr53c8xx driver(s) never disable(s) permanently tagged command queuing. It only sets the maximum numbers of tags to the number of disconnected commands when a QUEUE FULL status is reported by the device and dequeue all commands that are not started yet. It then increases this max number of commands by 1 every 1000 good status received up to the maximum configured, and so on ...
Obviously, if the device returns QUEUE FULL when only 1 or ZERO commands are actually disconnected (happens on Atlas I with L912) tagged queueing may then be temporarily disabled.
I donnot remember having received any problem report for TCQ involving a DPES-31080. But since I donnot have such an hard disks, I cannot tell more about these drives.
I have some drives that return QUEUE FULL sometimes: Atlas I L912, Atlas II LXY4, Cheatah2 0004. I didn't upgrade the Atlases since they are fine for testing and I never lost a single bit using them. The Cheetah needs to be flooded with something like 50 commands at a time with write cache enabled in order to start returning QUEUE FULL. I didn't remember any of these disks having ever rejected a SCSI command with TCQ enabled on my system. BTW, could you let me know the way used by the drive to reject tagged commands. Does it send a M_REJECT message when it is supplied with the ORDER TYPE + TAG message?
AFAIR, I haven't any experience of serious TCQ failure with the drives I have had to use. The IBM disks I have (S12 and DDRS) and some others behaves well for me with TCQ. May-be I am just lucky or donnot perform hard enough crash-tests on my system.
In my opinion, a blacklist for TCQ that just disallows the feature is too rude. It has been reported that some drives may work reasonnably using a small number of tags, and even just using 2 tagged commands instead of untagged commands may lower significantly command latency. Replacing the NOTQ flag by some numbers of tags (maximum and suggested for example) should probably be more relevant in my opinion. We should not miss that for 2.3.
Regards, Gerard.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |