From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eddie Subject: Re: LSI MegaRAID not recognised correctly in 64-bit. 2.6.29.6 Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:54:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4AB1185E.1050208@attglobal.net> References: <4AB10FC2.1080900@attglobal.net> <1253118717.4842.13.camel@mulgrave.site> Reply-To: stunnel@attglobal.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from kcout01.prserv.net ([12.154.55.31]:46322 "EHLO kcout01.prserv.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751294AbZIPQzH (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:55:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1253118717.4842.13.camel@mulgrave.site> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 09:18 -0700, Eddie wrote: > >> I've done a quick search of the archives, and didn't find anything >> relevant, or I missed it. :( >> >> I've just installed the latest Slackware release, 13.0, in 64-bit mode, >> that uses kernel 2.6.29.6. Previously, I was running 12.2, in 32-bit, >> which used kernel 2.6.27.31. After booting, I noticed that the drives >> on the raid had not been mounted. Checking through dmesg, I noticed >> that the "drive" attached to the card had not been correctly >> recognised. Here's the relevant messages, about the card, and the >> drive, from dmesg: >> >> megaraid cmm: 2.20.2.7 (Release Date: Sun Jul 16 00:01:03 EST 2006) >> >> megaraid: 2.20.5.1 (Release Date: Thu Nov 16 15:32:35 EST 2006) >> megaraid: probe new device 0x101e:0x1960:0x101e:0x0511: bus 1:slot 4:func 0 >> >> megaraid 0000:01:04.0: PCI INT A -> Link[LNK1] -> GSI 19 (level, high) >> -> IRQ 19 >> megaraid: fw version:[N661] bios version:[1.01] >> scsi4 : LSI Logic MegaRAID driver >> scsi[4]: scanning scsi channel 0 [Phy 0] for non-raid devices >> >> scsi[4]: scanning scsi channel 1 [Phy 1] for non-raid devices >> scsi[4]: scanning scsi channel 2 [Phy 2] for non-raid devices >> scsi[4]: scanning scsi channel 3 [Phy 3] for non-raid devices >> scsi[4]: scanning scsi channel 4 [virtual] for logical drives >> scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using 36 >> scsi 4:4:0:0: Direct-Access PQ: 0 ANSI: 0 >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] Sector size 0 reported, assuming 512. >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] 1 512-byte hardware sectors: (512 B/512 B) >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 00 00 00 >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] Asking for cache data failed >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] Sector size 0 reported, assuming 512. >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] 1 512-byte hardware sectors: (512 B/512 B) >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 00 00 00 >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] Asking for cache data failed >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through >> sda: unknown partition table >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk >> sd 4:4:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0 >> >> >> Obviously, it's this "scsi scan: INQUIRY result too short (5), using >> 36", causing the drive not to be correctly recognised. Normally, I'd >> expect to get: >> >> scsi 4:4:0:0: Direct-Access MegaRAID LD 0 RAID5 1430G N661 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2 >> sd 4:4:0:0: [sda] 2930307072 512-byte hardware sectors (1500317 MB) >> >> In order to eliminate either the change in kernel version, or the change >> in architecture, as the culprit, I booted the machine, from both the >> 32-bit, and 64-bit, DVDs from Slack. With the 32-bit kernel, the drive >> was correctly recognised, but not with the 64-bit. So, it's definitely >> the change in architecture causing this, not the change in kernel version. >> >> The full dmesg can be found here: ftp.BogoLinux.net/pub together with >> the dmesg from the 32-bit system, with kernel 2.6.27.31. >> > > How much memory does your system have? > > Best guess in the 64 bit case is that the physical memory the kernel is > doing DMA to isn't within the range of the card. You might be able to > test this by booting with the max_addr=4G parameter in the 64 bit case. > > If it is, we'll have to get the DMA mask for this thing set up > correctly. > > James > James, It's got 8Gig. I'll try your suggestion tonight, when I get home. Cheers, Eddie