From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Hancock Subject: Re: Believed resolved: SATA kern-buffRd read slow: based on promise driver bug Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:15 -0600 Message-ID: <477D9EAB.7090202@shaw.ca> References: <4777E08C.4000603@shaw.ca> <4779870E.5070507@tlinx.org> <20080101015812.59e9ebf0@the-village.bc.nu> <477BEF8D.8090307@tlinx.org> <477C2B71.7040504@shaw.ca> <477C63AA.8080006@tlinx.org> <18300.40661.199761.488061@harpo.it.uu.se> <477D9C00.8060600@tlinx.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <477D9C00.8060600@tlinx.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linda Walsh Cc: Mikael Pettersson , LKML , Alan Cox , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Linda Walsh wrote: > I seem to remember reading about some problems with Promise SATA & ACPI. > Does this address that or is that a separate issue? (Am using no-acpi for > now, but would like to try acpi again if it may be fixed (last time I tried > it with this card, "sdb" went "offline" (once it unmounted itself and > refused to be remounted (no error...just nothing), and another it stayed > mounted, but gave an I/O Error...so have been using no-acpi since). > An ACPI error in bootup said: > ACPI Exception (utmutex-0263): AE_BAD_PARAMETER, Thread EFFC2000 could > not acquire Mutex [3] [20070126] Have you tried 2.6.24-rc6? If the problem still occurs there, you should post the full bootup log. > > Is the above bug mentioned/discussed in the linux-ide archives? That > and I'd like to find out why TCQ/NCQ doesn't work with the Seagate > drives -- > my guess, since they say queuedepth of 0/32, is that they are blacklisted > as being drives that don't follow normal protocol or implement their > own proprietary extensions? Sigh. Really a lame move (if that's the case) > for Seagate, considering they usage they could likely get in server > configs. Maybe they want to push their SCSI/SAS drives? Queue depth 0/32 means the drive supports a queue depth of 32 but the controller/driver don't support NCQ. > BTW, can SATA have DPO or FUA or are those limited to SCSI? > Would it be a desirable future addition to remove the > "doesn't support DPO or FUA" error message" on SATA drives if they are > specific to SCSI? ATA disks can have FUA support, but the support is disabled in libata by default. (There's a fua parameter on libata module to enable it I believe.)