lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sd_resume redundant? [was: [PATCH] libata: implement ata_wait_after_reset()]
Indan Zupancic wrote:
>> Can you try to measure with sd_resume in place?
>
> [ 2.173366] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Starting disk
> [ 2.475422] ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
> [ 5.478403] ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310)
> [ 5.481928] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 234441648, hpa_sectors = 234441648
> [ 5.485904] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 234441648, hpa_sectors = 234441648
> [ 5.485913] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
> [ 5.505109] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 234441648 512-byte hardware sectors (120034 MB)
> [ 5.505461] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
> [ 5.505465] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
> [ 5.505612] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or
> FUA
> ...
> [ 6.157259] Restarting tasks ... done.
>
>
> And with echo 0 > /sys/class/scsi_disk/0\:0\:0\:0/manage_start_stop:
>
> [ 2.476476] ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
> ...
> [ 2.825479] Restarting tasks ... done.
> ...
> [ 5.022076] ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310)
> [ 5.025605] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 234441648, hpa_sectors = 234441648
> [ 5.028594] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 234441648, hpa_sectors = 234441648
> [ 5.028606] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
> [ 5.028720] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 234441648 512-byte hardware sectors (120034 MB)
> [ 5.028767] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
> [ 5.028773] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
> [ 5.028831] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or
> FUA
>
> So over all it takes half a second longer to detect the disk, but
> because everything waits on it, it takes more than three seconds
> longer to resume.

Eeeek. Extra three secs doesn't sound too hot. :-(

> Setting manage_start_stop to 0 fixes it and is good enough for me, I
> didn't notice anything bad yet because of the unmanaged
> stop. Implementing background spin up will fix it too.

Just commenting out sd_resume() would be a better solution for your
case tho.

>>> Everything seems to work fine without sd_resume(), so why is it needed?
>> Because not all disks spin up without being told to do so and like it or
>> not spinning disks up on resume is the default behavior. As I wrote in
>> the other reply, it would be worthwhile to make it configurable.
>
> Not even after they receive a read command? Ugh.

After receiving a command which requires media access, they do. What
I was saying is that the current default behavior is to spin up all
devices on resume and part of that is achieved by sd_resume().

Hmmm... skipping START_STOP during sd_resume() actually is a pretty
good solution for ATA devices. I'll think about it.

Thanks.

--
tejun
-
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: 2007-05-20 19:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans