sata_sil Mod15Write quirk workaround patch for vanilla kernel avaialble.

sata_sil Mod15Write quirk workaround patch for vanilla kernel avaialble.

[Tejun Heo]

 Hello, guys.

 I  generated m16w workaround patch for 2.6.11.6 (by just removing two
lines :-) and set up a page regarding m15w quirk and the workaournd.
I'm planning on updating m15w patch against the vanilla tree until it
gets into the mainline so that impatient users can try out and it gets
more testing.

 http://home-tj.org/m15w

 Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Re: sata_sil Mod15Write quirk workaround patch for vanilla kernel avaialble.

[John Lash]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:01:23 +0900
Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
>  Hello, guys.
> 
>  I  generated m16w workaround patch for 2.6.11.6 (by just removing two
> lines :-) and set up a page regarding m15w quirk and the workaournd.
> I'm planning on updating m15w patch against the vanilla tree until it
> gets into the mainline so that impatient users can try out and it gets
> more testing.
> 
>  http://home-tj.org/m15w
> 
>  Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> tejun
> 

Tejun,

I applied the patch to a clean 2.6.11.6 kernel and got an unresolved
symbol error for "ATA_TFLAG_LBA". I tried changing that to "ATA_TFLAG_LBA48" and
it compiles and runs.

So far, no problems. Thanks a lot for the patch.

--john

diff -ru format
-----

linux-2.6.11.6-sata_sil/drivers/scsi/sata_sil.c ---
linux-2.6.11.6/drivers/scsi/sata_sil.c      2005-03-31 10:58:59.000000000 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.11.6-sata_sil/drivers/scsi/sata_sil.c     2005-03-31
11:05:00.000000000 -0600 @@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ {
        u64 block = 0;
 
-       BUG_ON(!(tf->flags & ATA_TFLAG_LBA));
+       BUG_ON(!(tf->flags & ATA_TFLAG_LBA48));
 
        block |= (u64)tf->lbal;
        block |= (u64)tf->lbam << 8;
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@
 static inline void sil_m15w_rewrite_tf (struct ata_taskfile *tf,
                                        u64 block, u16 nsect)
 {
-       BUG_ON(!(tf->flags & ATA_TFLAG_LBA));
+       BUG_ON(!(tf->flags & ATA_TFLAG_LBA48));
 
        tf->nsect = nsect & 0xff;
        tf->lbal = block & 0xff;

Re: sata_sil Mod15Write quirk workaround patch for vanilla kernel avaialble.

[Tejun Heo]

  Hello, John.

John Lash wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:01:23 +0900
> Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Hello, guys.
>>
>> I  generated m16w workaround patch for 2.6.11.6 (by just removing two
>>lines :-) and set up a page regarding m15w quirk and the workaournd.
>>I'm planning on updating m15w patch against the vanilla tree until it
>>gets into the mainline so that impatient users can try out and it gets
>>more testing.
>>
>> http://home-tj.org/m15w
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>-- 
>>tejun
>>
> 
> 
> Tejun,
> 
> I applied the patch to a clean 2.6.11.6 kernel and got an unresolved
> symbol error for "ATA_TFLAG_LBA". I tried changing that to "ATA_TFLAG_LBA48" and
> it compiles and runs.
> 
> So far, no problems. Thanks a lot for the patch.
> 
> --john

  I'm sorry.  I uploaded the original patch against libata-dev-2.6 tree. 
  The two BUG_ON() lines should just be removed.  I've uploaded fixed 
patch.  Thanks for pointing out.

-- 
tejun

Re: Re: sata_sil Mod15Write quirk workaround patch for vanilla kernel avaialble.

[Alexander Trotsai]

On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:51:28AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
TH>  Hello, John.
TH> 
TH> John Lash wrote:
TH> >On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:01:23 +0900
TH> >Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:
TH> >
TH> >
TH> >>Hello, guys.
TH> >>
TH> >>I  generated m16w workaround patch for 2.6.11.6 (by just removing two
TH> >>lines :-) and set up a page regarding m15w quirk and the workaournd.
TH> >>I'm planning on updating m15w patch against the vanilla tree until it
TH> >>gets into the mainline so that impatient users can try out and it gets
TH> >>more testing.
TH> >>
TH> >>http://home-tj.org/m15w
TH> >>
TH> >>Thanks.
TH> >>
TH> >>-- 
TH> >>tejun
TH> >>
TH> >
TH> >
TH> >Tejun,
TH> >
TH> >I applied the patch to a clean 2.6.11.6 kernel and got an unresolved
TH> >symbol error for "ATA_TFLAG_LBA". I tried changing that to 
TH> >"ATA_TFLAG_LBA48" and
TH> >it compiles and runs.
TH> >
TH> >So far, no problems. Thanks a lot for the patch.
TH> 
TH>  I'm sorry.  I uploaded the original patch against libata-dev-2.6 tree. 
TH>  The two BUG_ON() lines should just be removed.  I've uploaded fixed 
TH> patch.  Thanks for pointing out.

Thanks
Seems to be worked (I'm install with ide-ata-2.6 patch)
But with heavy read load write performance is very very bad
(near 50-100 KBps)
But I think that is not problem of Silicon card (I have also
to SATA hard drives on Intel onboard SATA controller with
same performance troubles)

-- 
Best regard, Aleksander Trotsai aka MAGE-RIPE aka MAGE-UANIC
My PGP key at ftp://blackhole.adamant.ua/pgp/trotsai.key[.asc]

Re: sata_sil Mod15Write quirk workaround patch for vanilla kernel avaialble.

[Tejun Heo]

Alexander Trotsai wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:51:28AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> TH>  Hello, John.
> TH> 
> TH> John Lash wrote:
> TH> >On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:01:23 +0900
> TH> >Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:
> TH> >
> TH> >
> TH> >>Hello, guys.
> TH> >>
> TH> >>I  generated m16w workaround patch for 2.6.11.6 (by just removing two
> TH> >>lines :-) and set up a page regarding m15w quirk and the workaournd.
> TH> >>I'm planning on updating m15w patch against the vanilla tree until it
> TH> >>gets into the mainline so that impatient users can try out and it gets
> TH> >>more testing.
> TH> >>
> TH> >>http://home-tj.org/m15w
> TH> >>
> TH> >>Thanks.
> TH> >>
> TH> >>-- 
> TH> >>tejun
> TH> >>
> TH> >
> TH> >
> TH> >Tejun,
> TH> >
> TH> >I applied the patch to a clean 2.6.11.6 kernel and got an unresolved
> TH> >symbol error for "ATA_TFLAG_LBA". I tried changing that to 
> TH> >"ATA_TFLAG_LBA48" and
> TH> >it compiles and runs.
> TH> >
> TH> >So far, no problems. Thanks a lot for the patch.
> TH> 
> TH>  I'm sorry.  I uploaded the original patch against libata-dev-2.6 tree. 
> TH>  The two BUG_ON() lines should just be removed.  I've uploaded fixed 
> TH> patch.  Thanks for pointing out.
> 
> Thanks
> Seems to be worked (I'm install with ide-ata-2.6 patch)
> But with heavy read load write performance is very very bad
> (near 50-100 KBps)
> But I think that is not problem of Silicon card (I have also
> to SATA hard drives on Intel onboard SATA controller with
> same performance troubles)

  It has been quite a while since I looked at the elevator code but, 
IIRC, anticipatory elevator (rightfully) favors read requests over 
writes and doesn't care much about fairness between processes (IOW, 
request streams).  It depends on your workload but try using cfq.  For 
many puposes including common desktop usage, I find cfq to be better suited.

  Thanks.

-- 
tejun