From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Stone Subject: scsi negotiation problem on aic79xx (39320A) in 2.6.14 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:45:12 -0500 Message-ID: <20051114224512.GF9905@mathom.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Received: from vms044pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.44]:49106 "EHLO vms044pub.verizon.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932223AbVKNWpO (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:45:14 -0500 Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([70.108.64.202]) by vms044.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0IPY0088UV7DMKW1@vms044.mailsrvcs.net> for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:45:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EE26031E0 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:45:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 31318-03 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:45:12 -0500 (EST) Content-disposition: inline Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org At some point between 2.6.11 and 2.6.14 something seems to have killed the scsi performance for one of our disk arrays. Prior to the upgrade it could transfer a full 120MB/s to cache and sustain upwards of 100MB/s from disk. On 2.6.14 I saw more like 2.5MB/s to/from the array. From the array side the key difference was that the speed was reported as "async" rather than "160". The bootup messages from the kernel are different also: 2.6.11: Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: ACPI: PCI interrupt 0000:03:06.0[A] -> GSI 24 (level, low) -> IRQ 24 Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: ACPI: PCI interrupt 0000:03:06.1[B] -> GSI 25 (level, low) -> IRQ 25 Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: scsi2 : Adaptec AIC79XX PCI-X SCSI HBA DRIVER, Rev 1.3.11 Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: aic7902: Ultra320 Wide Channel A, SCSI Id=7, PCI-X 101-133Mhz, 512 SCBs Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: scsi3 : Adaptec AIC79XX PCI-X SCSI HBA DRIVER, Rev 1.3.11 Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: aic7902: Ultra320 Wide Channel B, SCSI Id=7, PCI-X 101-133Mhz, 512 SCBs Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: (scsi3:A:0): 160.000MB/s transfers (80.000MHz DT, 16bit) Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: Vendor: IFT Model: IFT-7250F Rev: 231T Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 04 Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: scsi3:A:0:0: Tagged Queuing enabled. Depth 32 Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: SCSI device sdf: 2938208256 512-byte hdwr sectors (1504363 MB) Nov 14 21:40:07 ormal kernel: SCSI device sdf: drive cache: write through 2.6.14: Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:03:06.0[A] -> GSI 24 (level, low) -> IRQ 23 Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: scsi2 : Adaptec AIC79XX PCI-X SCSI HBA DRIVER, Rev 1.3.11 Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: aic7902: Ultra320 Wide Channel A, SCSI Id=7, PCI-X 101-133Mhz, 512 SCBs Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: Vendor: IFT Model: IFT-7250F Rev: 231T Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 04 Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: target2:0:0: asynchronous. Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: scsi2:A:0:0: Tagged Queuing enabled. Depth 32 Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: target2:0:0: Beginning Domain Validation Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: target2:0:0: wide asynchronous. Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: target2:0:0: Domain Validation skipping write tests Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: target2:0:0: Ending Domain Validation Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: SCSI device sdf: 2938208256 512-byte hdwr sectors (1504363 MB) Nov 14 20:50:52 ormal kernel: SCSI device sdf: drive cache: write through Note that there's no "160.000MB/s transfers" message in 2.6.14, instead there's an "asynchronous". (In the course of diagnosing this I switched from one port on the scsi controller to the other, but the results were the same.) Is this a known issue? Is there a workaround? Mike Stone