linux-ide.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
	IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PIO with SSDs: needs a long DRQ-after-command timeout for WRITEs
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:30:17 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <495BD659.6000604@rtr.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200812311938.08916.bzolnier@gmail.com>

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Mark Lord wrote:
>> Alan Cox wrote:
>>>> So.. how long does libata and current IDE allow for initial DRQ assertion?
>>>> It should probably be at least 500msec or more now.
>>> I think we need to rewrite the PIO code paths to use disable/enable_irq
>>> masking first before getting into adding long delays on PIO paths.
>> ..
>>
>> Yeah, that would be a good thing to do.
> 
> Unless shared IRQs come into the picture -- in such case disabling IRQ
> for 0.5sec doesn't sound too sexy...
> 
>> But in the meanwhile, a longer timeout there doesn't affect
>> any currently working systems -- they'll still wait only as long
>> as they currently do.  And a longer timeout *will* enable these
>> SSDs to work where they otherwise would not.
>>
>> But perhaps the timeout is already long enough?
>> I don't know where the current timeout is hiding in libata.  :)
> 
> When it comes to IDE the timeout is defined by WAIT_DRQ in <linux/ide.h>
> and is currently set to 100ms.  There should be no problem with increasing
> it if it would help to get some devices to work (please just send a patch).
..

That's probably enough.  50msec wasn't, so we just bumped to a few seconds
in the custom kernel and sent them on their way happy.

But if it pops up again here (timeout waiting for initial DRQ),
then we all know what to do about it, I suppose.
Most people will never notice a problem, because most systems
aren't stuck in the PIO-only dark ages now.  :)

Cheers

  reply	other threads:[~2008-12-31 20:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-30 13:53 PIO with SSDs: needs a long DRQ-after-command timeout for WRITEs Mark Lord
2008-12-30 13:59 ` Alan Cox
2008-12-31 16:29   ` Mark Lord
2008-12-31 18:38     ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2008-12-31 20:30       ` Mark Lord [this message]
2008-12-30 18:14 ` Robert Hancock
     [not found]   ` <495B9D31.6080904@rtr.ca>
2008-12-31 17:33     ` Robert Hancock
2008-12-31 18:03       ` Sergei Shtylyov
2008-12-31 18:06       ` Sergei Shtylyov

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=495BD659.6000604@rtr.ca \
    --to=liml@rtr.ca \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=alan@redhat.com \
    --cc=bzolnier@gmail.com \
    --cc=htejun@gmail.com \
    --cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
    --cc=linux-ide@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 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).