All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@hp.com>
To: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: U320 SCSI negotiation problem in Linux 2.6.13 and later implementations on LSI Logic / Symbios Logic 53c1030 PCI-X Fusion-MPT Dual Ultra320 SCSI (rev 08)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:57:12 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <437B9D28.8000306@hp.com> (raw)

Whilst running a 2.6.14.2 kernel, I started running into severe 
performance issues with the following configuration:

- 4-way IA64 box (HP rx4640)
- 4x53c1030
- 8 dual-bus MSA 30 disk enclosures + six 72GB (U320 wide-capable) 
drives per bus (total of 48 disks)
- [[BTW: req_depth is being calculated as 255 per adapter in this 
configuration...]]

What I found was that a small number of drives (8 or 9 out of the 48) 
would come up at asynchronous narrow (8-bit) and very slow rates, while 
the rest came up correctly. After trying various kernel revisions - I 
had been using 2.6.9 prior to jumping to 2.6.14.2 - I narrowed it down 
to having occurred between 2.6.12.6 and 2.6.13 (it works correctly in 
2.6.12.6, but fails in 2.6.13 and afterwards).

With some more debugging, I found that what was happening was that 
during the negotiations, mpt_config would fail due to mpt_get_msg_frame 
returning -EAGAIN (frames were exhausted). I changed the code in 
mpt_config to do the following on an -EAGAIN: sleep for a short period 
of time, and then retry the mpt_get_msg_frame call; and this appears to 
have solved the problem - all the negotiations complete successfully, 
and I have full U320/wide disks across the board.

I'm not at all sure why the problem appears in 2.6.13 (and later) - I'm 
*assuming* that it has to do with either better parallel capabilities 
present in the base OS and/or better coding within the Fusion driver(s) 
producing more parallel activities (which exhaust the number of frames 
available).

I'm not quite sure how to proceed from here: I have sent a similar 
message to mpt_linux_developer@lsil.com (as the source code indicated 
that as one option).

Alan D. Brunelle
Hewlett-Packard Company
Open Source and Linux Organization
Performance and Scalability Group


                 reply	other threads:[~2005-11-16 20:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=437B9D28.8000306@hp.com \
    --to=alan.brunelle@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.