* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support [not found] ` <fa.YKbhgq8XUxH/Qg1ArE+73YsDlpE@ifi.uio.no> @ 2008-08-05 4:05 ` Robert Hancock 2008-08-05 13:14 ` Theodore Tso 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Robert Hancock @ 2008-08-05 4:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Gabor Gombas, Tejun Heo, Elias Oltmanns, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:28:32 +0200 > Gabor Gombas <gombasg@sztaki.hu> wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 04:19:26PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >> >>> However, SATA or not, there simply isn't a way to abort commands in ATA. >>> Issuing random command while other commands are in progress simply is >>> state machine violation and there will be many interesting results >>> including complete system lockup (ATA controller dying while holding the >>> PCI bus). >> A system lockup may be an acceptable compromise if that saves the >> hardware. Maybe the kernel should explicitely panic unless the >> controller/drive is known to be able to recover. > > We've already been told that the accelerometer will now and then randomly > trigger due to other shock patterns like a bump. I don't want my laptop > to panic randomly on train journeys thank you. Yes, from what I've seen on these laptops, it doesn't take much to trigger the shock protection in Windows - lifting the front of the laptop off the table an inch and dropping it will do it, as will picking it up and suddenly tilting it. (I think the idea is to detect situations where the laptop starts to fall, as by the time it impacts the floor it's too late.) There's an option in the settings to "ignore repetitive shocks as experienced in a train or automobile". So yes, it's reasonable to expect the shock protection to be triggered pretty often. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-05 4:05 ` [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support Robert Hancock @ 2008-08-05 13:14 ` Theodore Tso 2008-08-05 14:29 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Theodore Tso @ 2008-08-05 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Hancock Cc: Alan Cox, Gabor Gombas, Tejun Heo, Elias Oltmanns, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 10:05:03PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote: > Yes, from what I've seen on these laptops, it doesn't take much to > trigger the shock protection in Windows - lifting the front of the > laptop off the table an inch and dropping it will do it, A few years ago, I had a Thinkpad T21 laptop, accidentally slip through my butterfingers and dropped about an inch before it landed on the table. Unfortunately, (a) the Thinkpad T21 laptop was rather heavy (compared to modern laptops), (b) it didn't have the rubber "bubble" on the bottom of the laptop to cushion the landing as the T22 and T23's had (and I'm sure I know why it was added), and (c) the hard drive was active at the time. It was enough to cause a head crash and Linux immediately started reporting an exponentially increasing number of write errors; the hard drive was totally unusable within an hour or so. So there's a reason why the anti-shock protection is set at a rather sensitive level... The real right answer though is to buy one of the laptop drives (such as the Seagate Momentus 7200.2 or 7200.3) which has the anti-shock detection built directly into the hard drive. That way you don't have to have a daemon that sits in the OS waking up the CPU some 20 to 30 times a second and burning up your battery even when the laptop is idle. - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-05 13:14 ` Theodore Tso @ 2008-08-05 14:29 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 2008-08-05 15:14 ` Eric Piel ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh @ 2008-08-05 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Tso, Robert Hancock, Alan Cox, Gabor Gombas, Tejun Heo On Tue, 05 Aug 2008, Theodore Tso wrote: > The real right answer though is to buy one of the laptop drives (such > as the Seagate Momentus 7200.2 or 7200.3) which has the anti-shock > detection built directly into the hard drive. That way you don't have > to have a daemon that sits in the OS waking up the CPU some 20 to 30 > times a second and burning up your battery even when the laptop is > idle. Make that 50 times a second for the kernel over a slow LPC bus IO path, plus whatever userspace needs to process that data and feed it back as an UNLOAD IMMEDIATE request... Yes, doing it inside the HD itself is *MUCH* better. But only very few disks do it, so far, I only know of those Seagates. And they are available only on SATA. So, many thinkpad owners will want "software-based" HDAPS for at least five more years, maybe more (thinkpads REALLY have a long useful life, we still see a good number of T23 in heavy use...). -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-05 13:14 ` Theodore Tso 2008-08-05 14:29 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh @ 2008-08-05 15:14 ` Eric Piel 2008-08-05 19:59 ` Pavel Machek [not found] ` <48986E3A.5020707@tremplin-utc.net> 3 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Eric Piel @ 2008-08-05 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Tso, Robert Hancock, Alan Cox, Gabor Gombas, Tejun Heo Theodore Tso schreef: > The real right answer though is to buy one of the laptop drives (such > as the Seagate Momentus 7200.2 or 7200.3) which has the anti-shock > detection built directly into the hard drive. That way you don't have > to have a daemon that sits in the OS waking up the CPU some 20 to 30 > times a second and burning up your battery even when the laptop is > idle. Well, it's not always _that_ bad. For instance, the accelerometer in the HP laptops (lis3lv02dl) can monitor free-falls by itself. When the laptop starts falling, it generates one interrupt. Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-05 13:14 ` Theodore Tso 2008-08-05 14:29 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 2008-08-05 15:14 ` Eric Piel @ 2008-08-05 19:59 ` Pavel Machek 2008-08-05 22:57 ` Elias Oltmanns [not found] ` <48986E3A.5020707@tremplin-utc.net> 3 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2008-08-05 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Tso, Robert Hancock, Alan Cox, Gabor Gombas, Tejun Heo Hi! > > Yes, from what I've seen on these laptops, it doesn't take much to > > trigger the shock protection in Windows - lifting the front of the > > laptop off the table an inch and dropping it will do it, > > A few years ago, I had a Thinkpad T21 laptop, accidentally slip > through my butterfingers and dropped about an inch before it landed on > the table. Unfortunately, (a) the Thinkpad T21 laptop was rather > heavy (compared to modern laptops), (b) it didn't have the rubber > "bubble" on the bottom of the laptop to cushion the landing as the T22 > and T23's had (and I'm sure I know why it was added), and (c) the hard > drive was active at the time. It was enough to cause a head crash and > Linux immediately started reporting an exponentially increasing number > of write errors; the hard drive was totally unusable within an hour or > so. > > So there's a reason why the anti-shock protection is set at a rather > sensitive level... > > The real right answer though is to buy one of the laptop drives (such > as the Seagate Momentus 7200.2 or 7200.3) which has the anti-shock > detection built directly into the hard drive. That way you don't have > to have a daemon that sits in the OS waking up the CPU some 20 to 30 > times a second and burning up your battery even when the laptop is > idle. Hmm, when the laptop is idle, "right thing" is to spin the disk down, and at that point you no longer need to poll the accelerometer... Yes, doing it in drive is probably right place... but I'm told the algorithms are quite complex. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-05 19:59 ` Pavel Machek @ 2008-08-05 22:57 ` Elias Oltmanns 0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Elias Oltmanns @ 2008-08-05 22:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek Cc: Theodore Tso, Robert Hancock, Alan Cox, Gabor Gombas, Tejun Heo, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, linux-ide, linux-kernel [Resending because gmane cut off the To: header in Pavel's email, sorry.] Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> wrote: > Hi! > [...] >> So there's a reason why the anti-shock protection is set at a rather [+] >> sensitive level... >> >> The real right answer though is to buy one of the laptop drives (such >> as the Seagate Momentus 7200.2 or 7200.3) which has the anti-shock >> detection built directly into the hard drive. That way you don't have >> to have a daemon that sits in the OS waking up the CPU some 20 to 30 >> times a second and burning up your battery even when the laptop is >> idle. > > Hmm, when the laptop is idle, "right thing" is to spin the disk down, > and at that point you no longer need to poll the accelerometer... Not quite, I'm afraid. Even if the disk isn't spinning, we still have to make sure that it won't spin up in a precarious situation. Of course, if it wasn't user space but some kernel routine that consults the accelerometer and decides when to stop I/O, then we could indeed stop querying the accelerometer while the disk is in standby mode and delay a subsequent spin up for the time required to gather the necessary accelerometer data. However, as I have explained before, it is not quite trivial to implement all this in kernel space and I'd like to get head unloading merged first. Regards, Elias ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <48986E3A.5020707@tremplin-utc.net>]
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support [not found] ` <48986E3A.5020707@tremplin-utc.net> @ 2008-08-05 20:00 ` Pavel Machek 0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2008-08-05 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Piel Cc: Theodore Tso, Robert Hancock, Alan Cox, Gabor Gombas, Tejun Heo, Elias Oltmanns, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, linux-ide, linux-kernel On Tue 2008-08-05 17:14:02, Eric Piel wrote: > Theodore Tso schreef: >> The real right answer though is to buy one of the laptop drives (such >> as the Seagate Momentus 7200.2 or 7200.3) which has the anti-shock >> detection built directly into the hard drive. That way you don't have >> to have a daemon that sits in the OS waking up the CPU some 20 to 30 >> times a second and burning up your battery even when the laptop is >> idle. > Well, it's not always _that_ bad. For instance, the accelerometer in the HP > laptops (lis3lv02dl) can monitor free-falls by itself. When the laptop > starts falling, it generates one interrupt. I was told that "when it starts falling" is too late. Thinkpads at least tried to detect the movement before fall: before notebook falls off table, it is very likely to tilt a lot. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support [not found] ` <fa.zGvATZImeUo0tHJe4hzlk5+mTiM@ifi.uio.no> [not found] ` <fa.SRVleMItV5QEF7/tgCjSHz0ScJA@ifi.uio.no> @ 2008-08-05 4:16 ` Robert Hancock 2008-08-05 7:49 ` Tejun Heo 1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Robert Hancock @ 2008-08-05 4:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tejun Heo Cc: Elias Oltmanns, Alan Cox, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Tejun Heo wrote: > Elias Oltmanns wrote: >> On user request (through sysfs), the IDLE IMMEDIATE command with UNLOAD >> FEATURE as specified in ATA-7 is issued to the device and processing of >> the request queue is stopped thereafter until the speified timeout >> expires or user space asks to resume normal operation. This is supposed >> to prevent the heads of a hard drive from accidentally crashing onto the >> platter when a heavy shock is anticipated (like a falling laptop >> expected to hit the floor). This patch simply stops processing the >> request queue. In particular, it does not yet, for instance, defer an >> SRST issued in order to recover from an error on the other device on the >> interface. > > For libata, the easiest way to achieve the above would be adding a > per-dev EH action, say, ATA_EH_UNLOAD and schedule EH w/ the action OR'd > to eh_info->action. The EH_UNLOAD handler can then issue the command > wait for the specified number of seconds and continue. This will be > pretty simple to implement as command exclusion and stuff are all > automatically handled by EH framework. > > However, SATA or not, there simply isn't a way to abort commands in ATA. > Issuing random command while other commands are in progress simply is > state machine violation and there will be many interesting results > including complete system lockup (ATA controller dying while holding the > PCI bus). The only reliable way to abort in-flight commands are by > issuing hardreset. However, ATA reset protocol is not designed for > quick recovery. The machine is gonna hit the ground hard way before the > reset protocol is complete. How long does hardreset have to take? I only see a 1ms delay in the COMRESET process (sata_link_hardreset). I'd think it would be feasible to do something like: -stop the queue to prevent new commands from being issued -wait a certain amount of time (20ms or so?) for existing command(s) to complete, if they do then issue the idle command -if time runs out, trigger a hardreset and then issue the idle command The drive is going to take a little while to actually unload the heads anyway, so a few milliseconds delay doesn't seem like a big deal.. > > The only way to solve this nicely is either to build the accelerometer > into the drive and let the drive itself protect itself or implement a > sideband signal to tell it to duck for cover. For SATA, this sideband > signal can be another OOB sequence. If it's ever implemented this way, > it will be in SControl, I guess. > > Well, short of that, all we can do is to wait for the currently > in-flight commands to drain and hope that it happens before the machine > hits the ground. Also, that the harddrive is not going through one of > the longish EH recovery sequences when it starts to fall. :-( Well, Lenovo (and others?) have implemented this in Windows somehow.. It would be interesting to know what solution they used there (either hardreset, issue the command even when busy, or just wait for the commands to hopefully finish in time). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-05 4:16 ` Robert Hancock @ 2008-08-05 7:49 ` Tejun Heo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Tejun Heo @ 2008-08-05 7:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Hancock Cc: Elias Oltmanns, Alan Cox, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Robert Hancock wrote: >> However, SATA or not, there simply isn't a way to abort commands in ATA. >> Issuing random command while other commands are in progress simply is >> state machine violation and there will be many interesting results >> including complete system lockup (ATA controller dying while holding the >> PCI bus). The only reliable way to abort in-flight commands are by >> issuing hardreset. However, ATA reset protocol is not designed for >> quick recovery. The machine is gonna hit the ground hard way before the >> reset protocol is complete. > > How long does hardreset have to take? I only see a 1ms delay in the > COMRESET process (sata_link_hardreset). I'd think it would be feasible > to do something like: > > -stop the queue to prevent new commands from being issued > -wait a certain amount of time (20ms or so?) for existing command(s) to > complete, if they do then issue the idle command > -if time runs out, trigger a hardreset and then issue the idle command > > The drive is going to take a little while to actually unload the heads > anyway, so a few milliseconds delay doesn't seem like a big deal.. Two major areas of delays are... - Post-hardreset PHY readiness delay. It depends on both the controller and drive. Some combination might take pretty short while there are combinations which are known to take in the order of few seconds. It's determined by sata_deb_timing_* arrays in libata-core.c. In most cases, sata_deb_timing_normal works fine. Currently, sil24 needs the long variant. Using the normal one, the shortest possible timing would be a bit above 100ms as libata determines PHY is online only after the link state hasn't oscillate for that long. - Device readiness (the initial TF w/ signature). It depends on how the drive implementation. If the drive is spinning, it's usually pretty quick but there's no guarantee. Also, there's another problem that some controllers just can't wait for device readiness after hardreset and thus needs to perform softreset after hard one, which adds to the delay. Missing either of the above two can jam the reset sequence forcing a retry. It might work with some combinations of devices but given that we wouldn't get too much test coverage I don't really think the overhead and risk are justifiable. >> The only way to solve this nicely is either to build the accelerometer >> into the drive and let the drive itself protect itself or implement a >> sideband signal to tell it to duck for cover. For SATA, this sideband >> signal can be another OOB sequence. If it's ever implemented this way, >> it will be in SControl, I guess. >> >> Well, short of that, all we can do is to wait for the currently >> in-flight commands to drain and hope that it happens before the machine >> hits the ground. Also, that the harddrive is not going through one of >> the longish EH recovery sequences when it starts to fall. :-( > > Well, Lenovo (and others?) have implemented this in Windows somehow.. It > would be interesting to know what solution they used there (either > hardreset, issue the command even when busy, or just wait for the > commands to hopefully finish in time). I think just waiting till the currently pending commands are complete and then issuing IDLE_IMMEDIATE would cover most of the cases. Longer term, I really think there needs to be an out-of-band signal if this is gonna get done right. -- tejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [RFC] Disk shock protection in GNU/Linux @ 2008-07-26 6:20 Elias Oltmanns 2008-07-26 6:25 ` [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support Elias Oltmanns 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Elias Oltmanns @ 2008-07-26 6:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley Cc: Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Hi all, yet again, I'm trying to get this feature into the Linux kernel. This time, I have tried to arrange the code in such a way that hardly anything not strictly belonging to the libata or ide subsystem is touched at all. Since former attempts to design this in a more generic way involving the block and scsi layer have proven very difficult and since this is all about an ATA specific feature anyway, I think the best solution (for now at least) is to stick to those two subsystems as far as possible. Nevertheless, I'd welcome James' opinion on the third patch in the series with regard to the use of vendor specific cdbs. If it is acceptable in principle, the question remains whether we sould reserve part of the range 0xf800 - 0xffff of vendor specific service actions for the exclusive use by LLDDs (in much the way I did it here), or whether all these codes should be unique in the kernel and defined in scsi.h. Also, we have to agree upon a suitable way to deal with devices that actually do support the UNLOAD FEATURE but don't report that capability in their ID as specified in ATA-7. Perhaps we even want to fall back to STANDBY IMMEDIATE on devices that definitely don't support IDLE IMMEDIATE with UNLOAD FEATURE; this has been the case for the original hdaps / disk-protect patch but I'm not quite sure whether anybody actually relies on this feature and whether it would be advisable in the first place. Regarding devices that support head unloading but don't report it properly, there seem to be the following options: a) Provide an attribute in sysfs for the user to indicate that the device really does support the UNLOAD FEATURE. b) Issue the command (for the first time) anyway and check whether the device responds as specified in ATA-7. Make a note of the result and act accordingly from there on. The second option looks appealing because no user intervention is required and it is known to work at least for some devices. On the other hand, it may be dangerous on old hardware and I don't even know whether all pre-ATA-7 devices supporting the UNLOAD FEATURE really do return the correct data in the command registers. Here is a short description of the patches in this series applying cleanly on top of next-20080725: 1. This is a trivial patch making things slightly easier for #3. More importantly though, it also fixes a potential memory leak and should probably be applied regardless of the rest of the series (Jeff?). 2. This is a small patch to ata.h in order to provide a simple check for support of the UNLOAD FEATURE as indicated in a device's ID. 3. Here disk head unloading is implemented in the libata subsystem. See the changelog entry for current shortcomings of this patch. 4. The same for ide. 5. A little bit of documentation. There are some questions I need your advice on that have been inserted as FIXME comments into the code. However, here is a more general question that interests me even though it could turn out to be a good idea (or at least acceptable) to merge these patches before that question has been fully resolved. Alan once mentioned that it might be desirable to abort commands currently in progress and issue IDLE IMMEDIATE straight away. My question is whether this is at all possible for non SATA command protocols. In volume 2 of the ATA-7 specification I haven't found a well defined way to abort or shor circuit, say, a DMA or PIO command in progress. It even says that after the host has aborted data transfer when DMA was in progress, it is supposed to initiate a SRST. Obviously, I'd like to avoid that at all costs. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, Elias ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-07-26 6:20 [RFC] Disk shock protection in GNU/Linux Elias Oltmanns @ 2008-07-26 6:25 ` Elias Oltmanns 2008-08-01 7:19 ` Tejun Heo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Elias Oltmanns @ 2008-07-26 6:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley Cc: Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel On user request (through sysfs), the IDLE IMMEDIATE command with UNLOAD FEATURE as specified in ATA-7 is issued to the device and processing of the request queue is stopped thereafter until the speified timeout expires or user space asks to resume normal operation. This is supposed to prevent the heads of a hard drive from accidentally crashing onto the platter when a heavy shock is anticipated (like a falling laptop expected to hit the floor). This patch simply stops processing the request queue. In particular, it does not yet, for instance, defer an SRST issued in order to recover from an error on the other device on the interface. Signed-off-by: Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de> --- drivers/ata/ahci.c | 1 drivers/ata/ata_piix.c | 6 + drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 6 + drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c | 343 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- drivers/ata/libata.h | 11 + include/linux/libata.h | 6 + 6 files changed, 360 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci.c b/drivers/ata/ahci.c index dc7596f..cbf86fa 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/ahci.c +++ b/drivers/ata/ahci.c @@ -316,6 +316,7 @@ static struct device_attribute *ahci_shost_attrs[] = { static struct device_attribute *ahci_sdev_attrs[] = { &dev_attr_sw_activity, + &dev_attr_unload_heads, NULL }; diff --git a/drivers/ata/ata_piix.c b/drivers/ata/ata_piix.c index a90ae03..e4cdd86 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/ata_piix.c +++ b/drivers/ata/ata_piix.c @@ -289,8 +289,14 @@ static struct pci_driver piix_pci_driver = { #endif }; +static struct device_attribute *piix_sdev_attrs[] = { + &dev_attr_unload_heads, + NULL +}; + static struct scsi_host_template piix_sht = { ATA_BMDMA_SHT(DRV_NAME), + .sdev_attrs = piix_sdev_attrs, }; static struct ata_port_operations piix_pata_ops = { diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c index 0a2f921..07737ec 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c @@ -6094,6 +6094,11 @@ static int __init ata_init(void) if (!ata_aux_wq) goto free_wq; + if (ata_scsi_register_pm_notifier()) { + destroy_workqueue(ata_aux_wq); + goto free_wq; + } + printk(KERN_DEBUG "libata version " DRV_VERSION " loaded.\n"); return 0; @@ -6109,6 +6114,7 @@ static void __exit ata_exit(void) kfree(ata_force_tbl); destroy_workqueue(ata_wq); destroy_workqueue(ata_aux_wq); + ata_scsi_unregister_pm_notifier(); } subsys_initcall(ata_init); diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c index b5085cd..4bc0334 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c @@ -46,13 +46,16 @@ #include <linux/libata.h> #include <linux/hdreg.h> #include <linux/uaccess.h> +#if defined(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) || defined(CONFIG_HIBERNATION) +# include <linux/suspend.h> +#endif #include "libata.h" #define SECTOR_SIZE 512 #define ATA_SCSI_RBUF_SIZE 4096 -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ata_scsi_rbuf_lock); +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ata_scsi_lock); static u8 ata_scsi_rbuf[ATA_SCSI_RBUF_SIZE]; typedef unsigned int (*ata_xlat_func_t)(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc); @@ -113,6 +116,82 @@ static struct scsi_transport_template ata_scsi_transport_template = { .user_scan = ata_scsi_user_scan, }; +#if defined(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) || defined(CONFIG_HIBERNATION) +static int ata_scsi_park_count = 1; +DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(ata_scsi_park_wq); + +static inline int ata_scsi_suspend_parking(void) +{ + spin_lock_irq(&ata_scsi_lock); + if (ata_scsi_park_count == 1) + ata_scsi_park_count = 0; + spin_unlock_irq(&ata_scsi_lock); + return !ata_scsi_park_count; +} + +static int ata_scsi_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val, + void *null) +{ + switch (val) { + case PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE: + wait_event(ata_scsi_park_wq, ata_scsi_suspend_parking()); + break; + case PM_POST_SUSPEND: + ata_scsi_park_count = 1; + break; + default: + return NOTIFY_DONE; + } + return NOTIFY_OK; +} + +static struct notifier_block ata_scsi_pm_notifier_block = { + .notifier_call = ata_scsi_pm_notifier, +}; + +int ata_scsi_register_pm_notifier(void) +{ + return register_pm_notifier(&ata_scsi_pm_notifier_block); +} + +int ata_scsi_unregister_pm_notifier(void) +{ + return unregister_pm_notifier(&ata_scsi_pm_notifier_block); +} + +static inline void ata_scsi_signal_unpark(void) +{ + spin_lock(&ata_scsi_lock); + ata_scsi_park_count--; + spin_unlock(&ata_scsi_lock); + wake_up_all(&ata_scsi_park_wq); +} + +static inline int ata_scsi_mod_park_timer(struct timer_list *timer, + unsigned long timeout) +{ + int ret; + + spin_lock(&ata_scsi_lock); + if (likely(ata_scsi_park_count)) { + ret = mod_timer(timer, timeout); + if (!ret) + ata_scsi_park_count++; + } else + ret = -EBUSY; + spin_unlock(&ata_scsi_lock); + return ret; +} +#else /* defined(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) || defined(CONFIG_HIBERNATION) */ +static inline void ata_scsi_signal_unpark(void) { } + +static inline int ata_scsi_mod_park_timer(struct timer_list *timer, + unsigned long timeout) +{ + return mod_timer(timer, timeout); +} +#endif /* defined(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) || defined(CONFIG_HIBERNATION) */ + static const struct { enum link_pm value; @@ -183,6 +262,102 @@ DEVICE_ATTR(link_power_management_policy, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, ata_scsi_lpm_show, ata_scsi_lpm_put); EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_attr_link_power_management_policy); +static ssize_t ata_scsi_park_show(struct device *device, + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) +{ + struct scsi_device *sdev = to_scsi_device(device); + struct ata_port *ap; + struct ata_device *dev; + struct request_queue *q = sdev->request_queue; + unsigned int seconds; + + ap = ata_shost_to_port(sdev->host); + dev = ata_scsi_find_dev(ap, sdev); + if (!dev) + return -ENODEV; + if (!ata_id_has_unload(dev->id)) + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + + spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock); + if (timer_pending(&dev->park_timer)) + /* + * Adding 1 in order to guarantee nonzero value until timer + * has actually expired. + */ + seconds = jiffies_to_msecs(dev->park_timer.expires - jiffies) + / 1000 + 1; + else + seconds = 0; + spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock); + return snprintf(buf, 20, "%u\n", seconds); +} + +static void ata_scsi_issue_park_cmd(struct ata_device *dev, + struct request *rq, __be16 sa_op); + +static ssize_t ata_scsi_park_store(struct device *device, + struct device_attribute *attr, + const char *buf, size_t len) +{ +#define MAX_PARK_TIMEOUT 30 + struct scsi_device *sdev = to_scsi_device(device); + struct ata_port *ap; + struct ata_device *dev; + struct request_queue *q = sdev->request_queue; + struct request *rq; + unsigned long seconds; + char *p; + int skipped_cmd = 0, rc = 0; + + seconds = simple_strtoul((char *)buf, &p, 0); + if (p == buf || (*p != '\0' && (*p != '\n' || *(p + 1) != '\0')) + || seconds > MAX_PARK_TIMEOUT) + return -EINVAL; + + ap = ata_shost_to_port(sdev->host); + dev = ata_scsi_find_dev(ap, sdev); + if (unlikely(!dev)) + return -ENODEV; + if (!ata_id_has_unload(dev->id)) + return -EOPNOTSUPP; + + rq = blk_get_request(q, 0, __GFP_WAIT); + spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock); + if (seconds) { + if (unlikely(scsi_device_get(sdev))) { + rc = -ENXIO; + skipped_cmd = 1; + goto free_rq; + } + rc = ata_scsi_mod_park_timer(&dev->park_timer, + msecs_to_jiffies(seconds * 1000) + + jiffies); + if (rc) { + scsi_device_put(sdev); + skipped_cmd = 1; + if (likely(rc == 1)) + rc = 0; + } else + ata_scsi_issue_park_cmd(dev, rq, PARK_HEADS); + } else { + if (del_timer(&dev->park_timer)) { + ata_scsi_issue_park_cmd(dev, rq, UNPARK_HEADS); + ata_scsi_signal_unpark(); + scsi_device_put(sdev); + } else + skipped_cmd = 1; + } +free_rq: + if (skipped_cmd) + __blk_put_request(q, rq); + spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock); + + return rc ? rc : len; +} +DEVICE_ATTR(unload_heads, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, + ata_scsi_park_show, ata_scsi_park_store); +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_attr_unload_heads); + static void ata_scsi_set_sense(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd, u8 sk, u8 asc, u8 ascq) { cmd->result = (DRIVER_SENSE << 24) | SAM_STAT_CHECK_CONDITION; @@ -912,6 +1087,62 @@ static void ata_gen_ata_sense(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc) desc[11] = block; } +static void ata_scsi_issue_park_cmd(struct ata_device *dev, + struct request *rq, __be16 sa_op) +{ + struct request_queue *q = dev->sdev->request_queue; + struct scsi_varlen_cdb_hdr *vl_cdb; + + rq->cmd[0] = VARIABLE_LENGTH_CMD; + rq->cmd_len = 10; + rq->cmd_flags |= REQ_SOFTBARRIER; + rq->cmd_type = REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC; + rq->retries = 5; + rq->timeout = 10 * HZ; + vl_cdb = (struct scsi_varlen_cdb_hdr *)rq->cmd; + vl_cdb->additional_cdb_length = 2; + vl_cdb->service_action = sa_op; + __elv_add_request(q, rq, ELEVATOR_INSERT_FRONT, 0); + switch (sa_op) { + case PARK_HEADS: + blk_stop_queue(q); + q->request_fn(q); + break; + case UNPARK_HEADS: + blk_start_queue(q); + break; + default: + BUG(); + } +} + +static void ata_scsi_unpark_work(struct work_struct *work) +{ + struct ata_device *dev = container_of(work, struct ata_device, + unpark_work); + struct scsi_device *sdev = dev->sdev; + struct request_queue *q = sdev->request_queue; + struct request *rq; + + rq = blk_get_request(q, 0, __GFP_WAIT); + spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock); + if (likely(!timer_pending(&dev->park_timer))) + ata_scsi_issue_park_cmd(dev, rq, UNPARK_HEADS); + else + __blk_put_request(q, rq); + ata_scsi_signal_unpark(); + spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock); + scsi_device_put(sdev); +} + +static void ata_scsi_park_timeout(unsigned long data) +{ + struct ata_device *dev = (struct ata_device *)data; + + queue_work(ata_aux_wq, &dev->unpark_work); + /* FIXME: Is that correct or should I use ata_wq instead? */ +} + static void ata_scsi_sdev_config(struct scsi_device *sdev) { sdev->use_10_for_rw = 1; @@ -994,6 +1225,12 @@ static int ata_scsi_dev_config(struct scsi_device *sdev, scsi_adjust_queue_depth(sdev, MSG_SIMPLE_TAG, depth); } + /* configure disk head parking */ + INIT_WORK(&dev->unpark_work, ata_scsi_unpark_work); + dev->park_timer.function = ata_scsi_park_timeout; + dev->park_timer.data = (unsigned long)dev; + init_timer(&dev->park_timer); + return 0; } @@ -1227,6 +1464,65 @@ invalid_fld: return 1; } +/** + * ata_scsi_park_xlat - Translate private PARK_HEADS command + * @qc: Storage for translated ATA taskfile + * + * Sets up an ATA taskfile to issue IDLE IMMEDIATE with UNLOAD + * FEATURE. + * + * LOCKING: + * spin_lock_irqsave(host lock) + * + * RETURNS: + * Zero on success, non-zero on error. + */ +static unsigned int ata_scsi_park_xlat(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc) +{ + struct ata_taskfile *tf = &qc->tf; + struct ata_device *dev = qc->dev; + + tf->flags |= ATA_TFLAG_DEVICE | ATA_TFLAG_ISADDR; + tf->protocol = ATA_PROT_NODATA; + tf->command = ATA_CMD_IDLEIMMEDIATE; + tf->feature = 0x44; + tf->lbal = 0x4c; + tf->lbam = 0x4e; + tf->lbah = 0x55; + + dev->flags |= ATA_DFLAG_PARKED; + dev->sdev->max_device_blocked = 2; + + return 0; +} + +/** + * ata_scsi_unpark_xlat - Translate private UNPARK_HEADS command + * @qc: Storage for translated ATA taskfile + * + * Issues a CHECK POWER CONDITION command indicating to the device + * that it can resume normal operation. + * + * LOCKING: + * spin_lock_irqsave(host lock) + * + * RETURNS: + * Zero on success, non-zero on error. + */ +static unsigned int ata_scsi_unpark_xlat(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc) +{ + struct ata_taskfile *tf = &qc->tf; + struct ata_device *dev = qc->dev; + + tf->flags |= ATA_TFLAG_DEVICE | ATA_TFLAG_ISADDR; + tf->protocol = ATA_PROT_NODATA; + tf->command = ATA_CMD_CHK_POWER; + + dev->flags &= ~ATA_DFLAG_PARKED; + dev->sdev->max_device_blocked = 1; + + return 0; +} /** * ata_scsi_flush_xlat - Translate SCSI SYNCHRONIZE CACHE command @@ -1658,6 +1954,15 @@ static int ata_scsi_translate(struct ata_device *dev, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd, VPRINTK("ENTER\n"); + if (unlikely(dev->flags & ATA_DFLAG_PARKED)) { + struct scsi_varlen_cdb_hdr *vl_cdb; + + vl_cdb = (struct scsi_varlen_cdb_hdr *) cmd->cmnd; + if (vl_cdb->opcode != VARIABLE_LENGTH_CMD + || vl_cdb->service_action != UNPARK_HEADS) + return SCSI_MLQUEUE_DEVICE_BUSY; + } + qc = ata_scsi_qc_new(dev, cmd, done); if (!qc) goto err_mem; @@ -1724,7 +2029,7 @@ defer: * Prepare buffer for simulated SCSI commands. * * LOCKING: - * spin_lock_irqsave(ata_scsi_rbuf_lock) on success + * spin_lock_irqsave(ata_scsi_lock) on success * * RETURNS: * Pointer to response buffer. @@ -1732,7 +2037,7 @@ defer: static void *ata_scsi_rbuf_get(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd, bool copy_in, unsigned long *flags) { - spin_lock_irqsave(&ata_scsi_rbuf_lock, *flags); + spin_lock_irqsave(&ata_scsi_lock, *flags); memset(ata_scsi_rbuf, 0, ATA_SCSI_RBUF_SIZE); if (copy_in) @@ -1751,7 +2056,7 @@ static void *ata_scsi_rbuf_get(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd, bool copy_in, * @copy_back is true. * * LOCKING: - * Unlocks ata_scsi_rbuf_lock. + * Unlocks ata_scsi_lock. */ static inline void ata_scsi_rbuf_put(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd, bool copy_out, unsigned long *flags) @@ -1759,7 +2064,7 @@ static inline void ata_scsi_rbuf_put(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd, bool copy_out, if (copy_out) sg_copy_from_buffer(scsi_sglist(cmd), scsi_sg_count(cmd), ata_scsi_rbuf, ATA_SCSI_RBUF_SIZE); - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ata_scsi_rbuf_lock, *flags); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ata_scsi_lock, *flags); } /** @@ -2814,9 +3119,10 @@ static unsigned int ata_scsi_pass_thru(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc) * Pointer to translation function if possible, %NULL if not. */ -static inline ata_xlat_func_t ata_get_xlat_func(struct ata_device *dev, u8 cmd) +static inline ata_xlat_func_t ata_get_xlat_func(struct ata_device *dev, + struct scsi_cmnd *scmd) { - switch (cmd) { + switch (scmd->cmnd[0]) { case READ_6: case READ_10: case READ_16: @@ -2841,6 +3147,18 @@ static inline ata_xlat_func_t ata_get_xlat_func(struct ata_device *dev, u8 cmd) case START_STOP: return ata_scsi_start_stop_xlat; + + case VARIABLE_LENGTH_CMD: + if (scmd->cmd_len < 10) + break; + switch (((struct scsi_varlen_cdb_hdr *) + scmd->cmnd)->service_action) { + case PARK_HEADS: + return ata_scsi_park_xlat; + + case UNPARK_HEADS: + return ata_scsi_unpark_xlat; + } } return NULL; @@ -2874,7 +3192,6 @@ static inline int __ata_scsi_queuecmd(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd, void (*done)(struct scsi_cmnd *), struct ata_device *dev) { - u8 scsi_op = scmd->cmnd[0]; ata_xlat_func_t xlat_func; int rc = 0; @@ -2882,15 +3199,15 @@ static inline int __ata_scsi_queuecmd(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd, if (unlikely(!scmd->cmd_len || scmd->cmd_len > dev->cdb_len)) goto bad_cdb_len; - xlat_func = ata_get_xlat_func(dev, scsi_op); + xlat_func = ata_get_xlat_func(dev, scmd); } else { if (unlikely(!scmd->cmd_len)) goto bad_cdb_len; xlat_func = NULL; - if (likely((scsi_op != ATA_16) || !atapi_passthru16)) { + if (likely((scmd->cmnd[0] != ATA_16) || !atapi_passthru16)) { /* relay SCSI command to ATAPI device */ - int len = COMMAND_SIZE(scsi_op); + int len = COMMAND_SIZE(scmd->cmnd[0]); if (unlikely(len > scmd->cmd_len || len > dev->cdb_len)) goto bad_cdb_len; @@ -2900,7 +3217,7 @@ static inline int __ata_scsi_queuecmd(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd, if (unlikely(scmd->cmd_len > 16)) goto bad_cdb_len; - xlat_func = ata_get_xlat_func(dev, scsi_op); + xlat_func = ata_get_xlat_func(dev, scmd); } } @@ -2913,7 +3230,7 @@ static inline int __ata_scsi_queuecmd(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd, bad_cdb_len: DPRINTK("bad CDB len=%u, scsi_op=0x%02x, max=%u\n", - scmd->cmd_len, scsi_op, dev->cdb_len); + scmd->cmd_len, scmd->cmnd[0], dev->cdb_len); scmd->result = DID_ERROR << 16; done(scmd); return 0; diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata.h b/drivers/ata/libata.h index f6f9c28..1a03efa 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/libata.h +++ b/drivers/ata/libata.h @@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ #define DRV_NAME "libata" #define DRV_VERSION "3.00" /* must be exactly four chars */ +/* private scsi opcodes */ +#define PARK_HEADS 0xf800 +#define UNPARK_HEADS 0xf801 + struct ata_scsi_args { struct ata_device *dev; u16 *id; @@ -149,6 +153,13 @@ extern void ata_scsi_hotplug(struct work_struct *work); extern void ata_schedule_scsi_eh(struct Scsi_Host *shost); extern void ata_scsi_dev_rescan(struct work_struct *work); extern int ata_bus_probe(struct ata_port *ap); +#if defined(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) || defined(CONFIG_HIBERNATION) +extern int ata_scsi_register_pm_notifier(void); +extern int ata_scsi_unregister_pm_notifier(void); +#else +static inline int ata_scsi_register_pm_notifier(void) { return 0; } +static inline int ata_scsi_unregister_pm_notifier(void) { return 0; } +#endif /* libata-eh.c */ extern unsigned long ata_internal_cmd_timeout(struct ata_device *dev, u8 cmd); diff --git a/include/linux/libata.h b/include/linux/libata.h index 5b247b8..b40550d 100644 --- a/include/linux/libata.h +++ b/include/linux/libata.h @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ enum { ATA_DFLAG_DETACH = (1 << 24), ATA_DFLAG_DETACHED = (1 << 25), + ATA_DFLAG_PARKED = (1 << 26), ATA_DEV_UNKNOWN = 0, /* unknown device */ ATA_DEV_ATA = 1, /* ATA device */ @@ -451,6 +452,7 @@ enum link_pm { MEDIUM_POWER, }; extern struct device_attribute dev_attr_link_power_management_policy; +extern struct device_attribute dev_attr_unload_heads; extern struct device_attribute dev_attr_em_message_type; extern struct device_attribute dev_attr_em_message; extern struct device_attribute dev_attr_sw_activity; @@ -592,6 +594,10 @@ struct ata_device { u16 id[ATA_ID_WORDS]; /* IDENTIFY xxx DEVICE data */ u32 gscr[SATA_PMP_GSCR_DWORDS]; /* PMP GSCR block */ }; + + /* protected by block layer queue lock */ + struct timer_list park_timer; + struct work_struct unpark_work; }; /* Offset into struct ata_device. Fields above it are maintained ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-07-26 6:25 ` [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support Elias Oltmanns @ 2008-08-01 7:19 ` Tejun Heo 2008-08-01 22:34 ` Alan Cox ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Tejun Heo @ 2008-08-01 7:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Elias Oltmanns Cc: Alan Cox, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Elias Oltmanns wrote: > On user request (through sysfs), the IDLE IMMEDIATE command with UNLOAD > FEATURE as specified in ATA-7 is issued to the device and processing of > the request queue is stopped thereafter until the speified timeout > expires or user space asks to resume normal operation. This is supposed > to prevent the heads of a hard drive from accidentally crashing onto the > platter when a heavy shock is anticipated (like a falling laptop > expected to hit the floor). This patch simply stops processing the > request queue. In particular, it does not yet, for instance, defer an > SRST issued in order to recover from an error on the other device on the > interface. For libata, the easiest way to achieve the above would be adding a per-dev EH action, say, ATA_EH_UNLOAD and schedule EH w/ the action OR'd to eh_info->action. The EH_UNLOAD handler can then issue the command wait for the specified number of seconds and continue. This will be pretty simple to implement as command exclusion and stuff are all automatically handled by EH framework. However, SATA or not, there simply isn't a way to abort commands in ATA. Issuing random command while other commands are in progress simply is state machine violation and there will be many interesting results including complete system lockup (ATA controller dying while holding the PCI bus). The only reliable way to abort in-flight commands are by issuing hardreset. However, ATA reset protocol is not designed for quick recovery. The machine is gonna hit the ground hard way before the reset protocol is complete. The only way to solve this nicely is either to build the accelerometer into the drive and let the drive itself protect itself or implement a sideband signal to tell it to duck for cover. For SATA, this sideband signal can be another OOB sequence. If it's ever implemented this way, it will be in SControl, I guess. Well, short of that, all we can do is to wait for the currently in-flight commands to drain and hope that it happens before the machine hits the ground. Also, that the harddrive is not going through one of the longish EH recovery sequences when it starts to fall. :-( -- tejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-01 7:19 ` Tejun Heo @ 2008-08-01 22:34 ` Alan Cox 2008-08-03 3:19 ` Tejun Heo 2008-08-04 13:43 ` Elias Oltmanns 2008-08-04 13:26 ` Elias Oltmanns 2008-08-04 14:28 ` Gabor Gombas 2 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2008-08-01 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tejun Heo Cc: Elias Oltmanns, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel > However, SATA or not, there simply isn't a way to abort commands in ATA. > Issuing random command while other commands are in progress simply is > state machine violation and there will be many interesting results > including complete system lockup (ATA controller dying while holding the > PCI bus). The only reliable way to abort in-flight commands are by > issuing hardreset. However, ATA reset protocol is not designed for > quick recovery. The machine is gonna hit the ground hard way before the > reset protocol is complete. Actually you cau can issue idle immediate on older ATA devices. I am not clear if that was stuck back into the current accelerometer friendly drives or not. Would need to check with IBLenovo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-01 22:34 ` Alan Cox @ 2008-08-03 3:19 ` Tejun Heo 2008-08-03 13:05 ` Alan Cox 2008-08-04 13:43 ` Elias Oltmanns 1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Tejun Heo @ 2008-08-03 3:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Elias Oltmanns, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Alan Cox wrote: >> However, SATA or not, there simply isn't a way to abort commands in ATA. >> Issuing random command while other commands are in progress simply is >> state machine violation and there will be many interesting results >> including complete system lockup (ATA controller dying while holding the >> PCI bus). The only reliable way to abort in-flight commands are by >> issuing hardreset. However, ATA reset protocol is not designed for >> quick recovery. The machine is gonna hit the ground hard way before the >> reset protocol is complete. > > Actually you cau can issue idle immediate on older ATA devices. I am not > clear if that was stuck back into the current accelerometer friendly > drives or not. Would need to check with IBLenovo Was that something intentional or was it a happy accident? There can be bus ownership problem on PATA and on SATA this is much more state logic on both sides of the cable and I think things like that would be more difficult to work accidentally. Thanks. -- tejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-03 3:19 ` Tejun Heo @ 2008-08-03 13:05 ` Alan Cox 2008-08-03 13:58 ` Tejun Heo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2008-08-03 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tejun Heo Cc: Elias Oltmanns, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel > Was that something intentional or was it a happy accident? There can be > bus ownership problem on PATA and on SATA this is much more state logic IDLE IMMEDIATE is part of the "historic" specification rather than modern ATA standards. Older drives support it happily newer ones tended to get quite cross. > on both sides of the cable and I think things like that would be more > difficult to work accidentally. We'd have to query the drive vendors to see what they expected. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-03 13:05 ` Alan Cox @ 2008-08-03 13:58 ` Tejun Heo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Tejun Heo @ 2008-08-03 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Elias Oltmanns, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Alan Cox wrote: >> on both sides of the cable and I think things like that would be more >> difficult to work accidentally. > > We'd have to query the drive vendors to see what they expected. We'll have to query the controller vendors too and I think it's highly likely to cause problems on many controllers. -- tejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-01 22:34 ` Alan Cox 2008-08-03 3:19 ` Tejun Heo @ 2008-08-04 13:43 ` Elias Oltmanns 1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Elias Oltmanns @ 2008-08-04 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Tejun Heo, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: >> However, SATA or not, there simply isn't a way to abort commands in ATA. > >> Issuing random command while other commands are in progress simply is >> state machine violation and there will be many interesting results >> including complete system lockup (ATA controller dying while holding the >> PCI bus). The only reliable way to abort in-flight commands are by >> issuing hardreset. However, ATA reset protocol is not designed for >> quick recovery. The machine is gonna hit the ground hard way before the >> reset protocol is complete. > > Actually you cau can issue idle immediate on older ATA devices. I am not > clear if that was stuck back into the current accelerometer friendly > drives or not. Would need to check with IBLenovo In ide_atapi_error() IDLE IMMEDIATE is issued even if busy bit is still set. This made me hope that we could do something similar wrt disk head unloading. However, since I haven't found anything about this in the specs and considering Tejun's comments, I'm now wondering whether the code in ide_atapi_error() isn't a little imprudent. Also, as long as nothing definite is said about it in the specs, we can only issue IDLE IMMEDIATE in parallel to other commands on devices we know to support it, right? Regards, Elias ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-01 7:19 ` Tejun Heo 2008-08-01 22:34 ` Alan Cox @ 2008-08-04 13:26 ` Elias Oltmanns 2008-08-04 14:12 ` Tejun Heo 2008-08-04 14:28 ` Gabor Gombas 2 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Elias Oltmanns @ 2008-08-04 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tejun Heo Cc: Alan Cox, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote: > Elias Oltmanns wrote: >> On user request (through sysfs), the IDLE IMMEDIATE command with UNLOAD > >> FEATURE as specified in ATA-7 is issued to the device and processing of >> the request queue is stopped thereafter until the speified timeout >> expires or user space asks to resume normal operation. This is supposed >> to prevent the heads of a hard drive from accidentally crashing onto the >> platter when a heavy shock is anticipated (like a falling laptop >> expected to hit the floor). This patch simply stops processing the >> request queue. In particular, it does not yet, for instance, defer an >> SRST issued in order to recover from an error on the other device on the >> interface. > > For libata, the easiest way to achieve the above would be adding a > per-dev EH action, say, ATA_EH_UNLOAD and schedule EH w/ the action OR'd > to eh_info->action. The EH_UNLOAD handler can then issue the command > wait for the specified number of seconds and continue. This will be > pretty simple to implement as command exclusion and stuff are all > automatically handled by EH framework. I'm rather afraid this approach is impractical or unfavourable at the very least. Depending on the configured thresholds, a head unload request might well be issued unintentionally, e.g. by accidentally knocking against the table. It is quite alright for the HD to stop I/O for a moment but if the secondary device on the interface happens to be a CD writer, it will be very annoying to have CD writing operations fail due to minor percussions. Also, if there are two devices on the same port that support the UNLOAD FEATURE and you issue a head unload request to both of them in close succession, the IDLE IMMEDIATE to the second device will be blocked until the timeout for the first has expired. Generally, blocking SRST and the likes on a port seems acceptable, but stopping all I/O on a port just because a head unload request has been issued to a single device attached to it is not an option. > > However, SATA or not, there simply isn't a way to abort commands in ATA. > Issuing random command while other commands are in progress simply is > state machine violation and there will be many interesting results > including complete system lockup (ATA controller dying while holding the > PCI bus). The only reliable way to abort in-flight commands are by > issuing hardreset. However, ATA reset protocol is not designed for > quick recovery. The machine is gonna hit the ground hard way before the > reset protocol is complete. Yes, I suspected as much. Thanks for the confirmation. [...] > > Well, short of that, all we can do is to wait for the currently > in-flight commands to drain and hope that it happens before the machine > hits the ground. Also, that the harddrive is not going through one of > the longish EH recovery sequences when it starts to fall. :-( Yes, it's a bit unsatisfactory but it's better than nothing. Regards, Elias ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-04 13:26 ` Elias Oltmanns @ 2008-08-04 14:12 ` Tejun Heo 2008-08-04 16:54 ` Elias Oltmanns 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Tejun Heo @ 2008-08-04 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Elias Oltmanns Cc: Alan Cox, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Elias Oltmanns wrote: >> For libata, the easiest way to achieve the above would be adding a >> per-dev EH action, say, ATA_EH_UNLOAD and schedule EH w/ the action OR'd >> to eh_info->action. The EH_UNLOAD handler can then issue the command >> wait for the specified number of seconds and continue. This will be >> pretty simple to implement as command exclusion and stuff are all >> automatically handled by EH framework. > > I'm rather afraid this approach is impractical or unfavourable at the > very least. Depending on the configured thresholds, a head unload > request might well be issued unintentionally, e.g. by accidentally > knocking against the table. It is quite alright for the HD to stop I/O > for a moment but if the secondary device on the interface happens to be > a CD writer, it will be very annoying to have CD writing operations fail > due to minor percussions. Why would it fail? > Also, if there are two devices on the same > port that support the UNLOAD FEATURE and you issue a head unload request > to both of them in close succession, the IDLE IMMEDIATE to the second > device will be blocked until the timeout for the first has expired. Unload can be implemented as port-wide operation so that it issues IDLE IMMEDIATE to all drives on the port but given that this is mostly for laptop, this discussion is a bit peripheral. -- tejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-04 14:12 ` Tejun Heo @ 2008-08-04 16:54 ` Elias Oltmanns 2008-08-04 23:26 ` Tejun Heo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Elias Oltmanns @ 2008-08-04 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tejun Heo Cc: Alan Cox, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote: > Elias Oltmanns wrote: >>> For libata, the easiest way to achieve the above would be adding a > >>> per-dev EH action, say, ATA_EH_UNLOAD and schedule EH w/ the action OR'd >>> to eh_info->action. The EH_UNLOAD handler can then issue the command >>> wait for the specified number of seconds and continue. This will be >>> pretty simple to implement as command exclusion and stuff are all >>> automatically handled by EH framework. >> >> I'm rather afraid this approach is impractical or unfavourable at the >> very least. Depending on the configured thresholds, a head unload >> request might well be issued unintentionally, e.g. by accidentally >> knocking against the table. It is quite alright for the HD to stop I/O >> for a moment but if the secondary device on the interface happens to be >> a CD writer, it will be very annoying to have CD writing operations fail >> due to minor percussions. > > Why would it fail? To be quite honest, I don't know very much about the way CD writing works. I just assumed that delaying queue processing for a CD writer for several seconds would have very much the same effect as the input buffer of cdrecord getting empty prematurely. Do you mean to say that CD writing (or any other time expensive operation I haven't thought of) won't be affected irrecoverably by interrupted command processing? > >> Also, if there are two devices on the same >> port that support the UNLOAD FEATURE and you issue a head unload request >> to both of them in close succession, the IDLE IMMEDIATE to the second >> device will be blocked until the timeout for the first has expired. > > Unload can be implemented as port-wide operation so that it issues IDLE > IMMEDIATE to all drives on the port but given that this is mostly for > laptop, this discussion is a bit peripheral. We can't rule out that the HD is connected as master and CDRW as slave to the same controller in a PATA setup. I'm not familiar with the SATA configurations in modern laptops though. Regards, Elias ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-04 16:54 ` Elias Oltmanns @ 2008-08-04 23:26 ` Tejun Heo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Tejun Heo @ 2008-08-04 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Elias Oltmanns Cc: Alan Cox, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Elias Oltmanns wrote: >>> I'm rather afraid this approach is impractical or unfavourable at the >>> very least. Depending on the configured thresholds, a head unload >>> request might well be issued unintentionally, e.g. by accidentally >>> knocking against the table. It is quite alright for the HD to stop I/O >>> for a moment but if the secondary device on the interface happens to be >>> a CD writer, it will be very annoying to have CD writing operations fail >>> due to minor percussions. >> Why would it fail? > > To be quite honest, I don't know very much about the way CD writing > works. I just assumed that delaying queue processing for a CD writer for > several seconds would have very much the same effect as the input buffer > of cdrecord getting empty prematurely. Do you mean to say that CD > writing (or any other time expensive operation I haven't thought of) > won't be affected irrecoverably by interrupted command processing? Any modern cd/dvd writer can happily recover from buffer underruns. I think the physical shock itself has better chance of screwing up the recording. The only thing to make sure is that no command is issued to ATAPI devices. Other than that, there should be no problem. >>> Also, if there are two devices on the same >>> port that support the UNLOAD FEATURE and you issue a head unload request >>> to both of them in close succession, the IDLE IMMEDIATE to the second >>> device will be blocked until the timeout for the first has expired. >> Unload can be implemented as port-wide operation so that it issues IDLE >> IMMEDIATE to all drives on the port but given that this is mostly for >> laptop, this discussion is a bit peripheral. > > We can't rule out that the HD is connected as master and CDRW as slave > to the same controller in a PATA setup. I'm not familiar with the SATA > configurations in modern laptops though. On most, they occupy different channels and even when they reside on the same channel, it just doesn't really matter these days. And even on those cases, it would be better to use EH as that will make the IDLE IMMEDIATE command always win the bus as soon as possible while IDLE IMMEDIATE queued at the head of the drive queue could lose to an ATAPI command. Thanks. -- tejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-01 7:19 ` Tejun Heo 2008-08-01 22:34 ` Alan Cox 2008-08-04 13:26 ` Elias Oltmanns @ 2008-08-04 14:28 ` Gabor Gombas 2008-08-04 14:13 ` Alan Cox 2008-08-04 14:35 ` Tejun Heo 2 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Gabor Gombas @ 2008-08-04 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tejun Heo Cc: Elias Oltmanns, Alan Cox, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 04:19:26PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > However, SATA or not, there simply isn't a way to abort commands in ATA. > Issuing random command while other commands are in progress simply is > state machine violation and there will be many interesting results > including complete system lockup (ATA controller dying while holding the > PCI bus). A system lockup may be an acceptable compromise if that saves the hardware. Maybe the kernel should explicitely panic unless the controller/drive is known to be able to recover. Gabor -- --------------------------------------------------------- MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences --------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-04 14:28 ` Gabor Gombas @ 2008-08-04 14:13 ` Alan Cox 2008-08-04 14:35 ` Tejun Heo 1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2008-08-04 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gabor Gombas Cc: Tejun Heo, Elias Oltmanns, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:28:32 +0200 Gabor Gombas <gombasg@sztaki.hu> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 04:19:26PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > However, SATA or not, there simply isn't a way to abort commands in ATA. > > Issuing random command while other commands are in progress simply is > > state machine violation and there will be many interesting results > > including complete system lockup (ATA controller dying while holding the > > PCI bus). > > A system lockup may be an acceptable compromise if that saves the > hardware. Maybe the kernel should explicitely panic unless the > controller/drive is known to be able to recover. We've already been told that the accelerometer will now and then randomly trigger due to other shock patterns like a bump. I don't want my laptop to panic randomly on train journeys thank you. Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support 2008-08-04 14:28 ` Gabor Gombas 2008-08-04 14:13 ` Alan Cox @ 2008-08-04 14:35 ` Tejun Heo 1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Tejun Heo @ 2008-08-04 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gabor Gombas Cc: Elias Oltmanns, Alan Cox, Jeff Garzik, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, James Bottomley, Pavel Machek, linux-ide, linux-kernel Gabor Gombas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 04:19:26PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> However, SATA or not, there simply isn't a way to abort commands in ATA. >> Issuing random command while other commands are in progress simply is >> state machine violation and there will be many interesting results >> including complete system lockup (ATA controller dying while holding the >> PCI bus). > > A system lockup may be an acceptable compromise if that saves the > hardware. Maybe the kernel should explicitely panic unless the > controller/drive is known to be able to recover. Such lockups usually would occur before the intervening command is successfully issued. HSM violation occurs when the driver asks the controller to send another command while it's already processing another command. Heh... panicking on accelerometer would be fun tho. We're gonna get ourselves really flamewars on just about every linux news site. -- tejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-08-05 23:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <fa.nx0yFPJm+aNXPHgykUrOzZXvvIs@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.NfEr7Ik6e8oextyWICW/jR5emeE@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.zGvATZImeUo0tHJe4hzlk5+mTiM@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.SRVleMItV5QEF7/tgCjSHz0ScJA@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.YKbhgq8XUxH/Qg1ArE+73YsDlpE@ifi.uio.no>
2008-08-05 4:05 ` [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support Robert Hancock
2008-08-05 13:14 ` Theodore Tso
2008-08-05 14:29 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-08-05 15:14 ` Eric Piel
2008-08-05 19:59 ` Pavel Machek
2008-08-05 22:57 ` Elias Oltmanns
[not found] ` <48986E3A.5020707@tremplin-utc.net>
2008-08-05 20:00 ` Pavel Machek
2008-08-05 4:16 ` Robert Hancock
2008-08-05 7:49 ` Tejun Heo
2008-07-26 6:20 [RFC] Disk shock protection in GNU/Linux Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-26 6:25 ` [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support Elias Oltmanns
2008-08-01 7:19 ` Tejun Heo
2008-08-01 22:34 ` Alan Cox
2008-08-03 3:19 ` Tejun Heo
2008-08-03 13:05 ` Alan Cox
2008-08-03 13:58 ` Tejun Heo
2008-08-04 13:43 ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-08-04 13:26 ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-08-04 14:12 ` Tejun Heo
2008-08-04 16:54 ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-08-04 23:26 ` Tejun Heo
2008-08-04 14:28 ` Gabor Gombas
2008-08-04 14:13 ` Alan Cox
2008-08-04 14:35 ` Tejun Heo
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).