* ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
@ 2004-02-05 16:40 Kyle
2004-02-05 17:23 ` Bas Mevissen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kyle @ 2004-02-05 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Problem with ICH5?
I read the list web, so please CC my email, thanks.
P4 2.6G HT, 2GB Ram, ICH5, WD250GB/8M x 2 (md raid 1), kernel 2.6.1
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.14 seconds =882.89 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.14 seconds = 29.93 MB/sec
Celeron 1.3T, 1GB Ram, SIS630/5513, WD80GB/2M x 2 (md raid 1), kernel 2.6.1
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.24 seconds =103.08 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.83 seconds = 35.00 MB/sec
Celeron 2.5G, 512MB Ram, i845/ICH4, WD120GB/8M x 2 (md raid 1), redhat
kernel 2.4.20
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.35 seconds =365.71 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.38 seconds = 46.38 MB/sec
Kyle
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-05 16:40 ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow Kyle
@ 2004-02-05 17:23 ` Bas Mevissen
2004-02-05 17:27 ` Kyle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Bas Mevissen @ 2004-02-05 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kyle; +Cc: linux-kernel
Kyle wrote:
> Problem with ICH5?
> I read the list web, so please CC my email, thanks.
>
> P4 2.6G HT, 2GB Ram, ICH5, WD250GB/8M x 2 (md raid 1), kernel 2.6.1
> Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.14 seconds =882.89 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.14 seconds = 29.93 MB/sec
>
> Celeron 1.3T, 1GB Ram, SIS630/5513, WD80GB/2M x 2 (md raid 1), kernel 2.6.1
> Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.24 seconds =103.08 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.83 seconds = 35.00 MB/sec
>
> Celeron 2.5G, 512MB Ram, i845/ICH4, WD120GB/8M x 2 (md raid 1), redhat
> kernel 2.4.20
> Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.35 seconds =365.71 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.38 seconds = 46.38 MB/sec
>
Is that a parallel IDE? I own a S-ATA IDE (also WD) with an ICH5. That
performs around 45-50MB/sec with 2.6.1. I've never tried 2.4.xx on it.
Bas.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-05 17:23 ` Bas Mevissen
@ 2004-02-05 17:27 ` Kyle
2004-02-05 17:30 ` Bas Mevissen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kyle @ 2004-02-05 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bas Mevissen; +Cc: linux-kernel
Yes they are PATA, I expect something like 40-50MB/s, now my much slower
Celeron 1.3T with 80GB/2M perform better than my ICH5!
Kyle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bas Mevissen" <ml@basmevissen.nl>
To: "Kyle" <kyle@southa.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
> Kyle wrote:
>
> > Problem with ICH5?
> > I read the list web, so please CC my email, thanks.
> >
> > P4 2.6G HT, 2GB Ram, ICH5, WD250GB/8M x 2 (md raid 1), kernel 2.6.1
> > Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.14 seconds =882.89 MB/sec
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.14 seconds = 29.93 MB/sec
> >
> > Celeron 1.3T, 1GB Ram, SIS630/5513, WD80GB/2M x 2 (md raid 1), kernel
2.6.1
> > Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 1.24 seconds =103.08 MB/sec
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.83 seconds = 35.00 MB/sec
> >
> > Celeron 2.5G, 512MB Ram, i845/ICH4, WD120GB/8M x 2 (md raid 1), redhat
> > kernel 2.4.20
> > Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.35 seconds =365.71 MB/sec
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.38 seconds = 46.38 MB/sec
> >
>
> Is that a parallel IDE? I own a S-ATA IDE (also WD) with an ICH5. That
> performs around 45-50MB/sec with 2.6.1. I've never tried 2.4.xx on it.
>
> Bas.
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-05 17:27 ` Kyle
@ 2004-02-05 17:30 ` Bas Mevissen
2004-02-05 17:33 ` Kyle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Bas Mevissen @ 2004-02-05 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kyle; +Cc: linux-kernel
Kyle wrote:
> Yes they are PATA, I expect something like 40-50MB/s, now my much slower
> Celeron 1.3T with 80GB/2M perform better than my ICH5!
>
What does 'hdparm /dev/hdX' say (X=a,b,c...)?
Bas.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-05 17:30 ` Bas Mevissen
@ 2004-02-05 17:33 ` Kyle
2004-02-06 10:10 ` Bas Mevissen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kyle @ 2004-02-05 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bas Mevissen; +Cc: linux-kernel
hdparm /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
multcount = 16 (on)
IO_support = 1 (32-bit)
unmaskirq = 1 (on)
using_dma = 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 256 (on)
geometry = 30401/255/63, sectors = 488397168, start = 0
tried with hdparm -a8192 /dev/hda, not much different
/dev/hdc same as /dev/hda
Kyle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bas Mevissen" <ml@basmevissen.nl>
To: "Kyle" <kyle@southa.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
> Kyle wrote:
>
> > Yes they are PATA, I expect something like 40-50MB/s, now my much slower
> > Celeron 1.3T with 80GB/2M perform better than my ICH5!
> >
>
> What does 'hdparm /dev/hdX' say (X=a,b,c...)?
>
> Bas.
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-05 17:33 ` Kyle
@ 2004-02-06 10:10 ` Bas Mevissen
2004-02-06 21:32 ` Kyle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Bas Mevissen @ 2004-02-06 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kyle; +Cc: linux-kernel
Kyle wrote:
> hdparm /dev/hda
> /dev/hda:
> multcount = 16 (on)
> IO_support = 1 (32-bit)
> unmaskirq = 1 (on)
> using_dma = 1 (on)
> keepsettings = 0 (off)
> readonly = 0 (off)
> readahead = 256 (on)
> geometry = 30401/255/63, sectors = 488397168, start = 0
>
> tried with hdparm -a8192 /dev/hda, not much different
> /dev/hdc same as /dev/hda
>
Looks fine. That's strange. Maybe reboot the system and check
/proc/interrupts to see if none of them is excessive.
What's your .config? Try with as less as possible IDE stuff enabled.
Bas.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-06 10:10 ` Bas Mevissen
@ 2004-02-06 21:32 ` Kyle
2004-02-09 8:32 ` Bas Mevissen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kyle @ 2004-02-06 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bas Mevissen; +Cc: linux-kernel
Today I tried to boot with redhat kernel 2.4.20-24.9smp, much better result:
/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.14 seconds =914.29 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.67 seconds = 38.32 MB/sec
Really strange that /dev/hdc is even faster!
/dev/hdc:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.13 seconds =984.62 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.17 seconds = 54.70 MB/sec
I ran hdparm 5 times at both harddisk and take the fastest result.
/dev/hda and /dev/hdc are both WD 250GB / 8M, same model.
at kernel 2.6, I got same performance for /dev/hda and /dev/hdc, around
~28MB/sec. 50%-100% slower then kernel 2.4
/proc/interrupt:
CPU0 CPU1
0: 8014632 0 IO-APIC-edge timer
1: 2273 0 IO-APIC-edge i8042
2: 0 0 XT-PIC cascade
8: 1 0 IO-APIC-edge rtc
9: 0 0 IO-APIC-level acpi
14: 167888 0 IO-APIC-edge ide0
15: 199399 0 IO-APIC-edge ide1
20: 2186070 0 IO-APIC-level eth1
NMI: 0 0
LOC: 8014888 8014887
ERR: 0
MIS: 0
I tried to update my mobo BIOS (Intel D865GLC), remove one of the NIC (I
have two), disable serial, parallel, USB etc just leave IDE and built-in
display, no help. I have NO IDE cdrom and floppy, only 2 harddisk, 1 CPU, 4
x 512M DDR and a mobo at my machine.
CONFIG_IDE=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDISK=y
CONFIG_IDEDISK_MULTI_MODE=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDECD=m
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDESCSI=m
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEPNP=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEPCI=y
CONFIG_IDEPCI_SHARE_IRQ=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_GENERIC=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDMA_PCI=y
CONFIG_IDEDMA_PCI_AUTO=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ADMA=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PIIX=y
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDEDMA=y
CONFIG_IDEDMA_AUTO=y
Kyle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bas Mevissen" <ml@basmevissen.nl>
To: "Kyle" <kyle@southa.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
> Kyle wrote:
>
> > hdparm /dev/hda
> > /dev/hda:
> > multcount = 16 (on)
> > IO_support = 1 (32-bit)
> > unmaskirq = 1 (on)
> > using_dma = 1 (on)
> > keepsettings = 0 (off)
> > readonly = 0 (off)
> > readahead = 256 (on)
> > geometry = 30401/255/63, sectors = 488397168, start = 0
> >
> > tried with hdparm -a8192 /dev/hda, not much different
> > /dev/hdc same as /dev/hda
> >
>
> Looks fine. That's strange. Maybe reboot the system and check
> /proc/interrupts to see if none of them is excessive.
>
> What's your .config? Try with as less as possible IDE stuff enabled.
>
> Bas.
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-06 21:32 ` Kyle
@ 2004-02-09 8:32 ` Bas Mevissen
2004-02-09 8:56 ` Kyle Wong
2004-02-11 14:54 ` Kyle
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Bas Mevissen @ 2004-02-09 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kyle; +Cc: linux-kernel
Kyle wrote:
> Today I tried
(...)
This is quite strange. The only thing I can think of is that the
hardware (?) raid1 is causing problems with 2.6.
Is there a possibility for you to test without it?
Currently, I don't have a decent PATA disk luyng around, so I cannot
verify anything for you.
Regards,
Bas.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-09 8:32 ` Bas Mevissen
@ 2004-02-09 8:56 ` Kyle Wong
2004-02-11 14:54 ` Kyle
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kyle Wong @ 2004-02-09 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bas Mevissen; +Cc: linux-kernel
No hardware raid, it's kernel built-in md driver.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bas Mevissen" <ml@basmevissen.nl>
To: "Kyle" <kyle@southa.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
> Kyle wrote:
>
> > Today I tried
>
> (...)
>
> This is quite strange. The only thing I can think of is that the
> hardware (?) raid1 is causing problems with 2.6.
>
> Is there a possibility for you to test without it?
>
> Currently, I don't have a decent PATA disk luyng around, so I cannot
> verify anything for you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bas.
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-09 8:32 ` Bas Mevissen
2004-02-09 8:56 ` Kyle Wong
@ 2004-02-11 14:54 ` Kyle
2004-02-12 8:41 ` Jamie Lokier
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kyle @ 2004-02-11 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bas Mevissen; +Cc: linux-kernel
Today I tried with compile the kernel 2.6.1 with:
IGNORE word93 Validation BITS (IDEDMA_IVB) = y
The result looks a bit better, got 30MB/s at /dev/hda and 37MB/s at /dev/hdc
(38MB/s and 55MB/s at kernel 2.4.20)
Still very strange, /dev/hda and /dev/hda are exactly same model harddisk.
Also, the result still can't compare with my another much slower machine
Celeron / ICH4 / 2 x WD 120GB (md1), which got 46MB/s at both /dev/hda and
/dev/hdc,
Kyle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bas Mevissen" <ml@basmevissen.nl>
To: "Kyle" <kyle@southa.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
> Kyle wrote:
>
> > Today I tried
>
> (...)
>
> This is quite strange. The only thing I can think of is that the
> hardware (?) raid1 is causing problems with 2.6.
>
> Is there a possibility for you to test without it?
>
> Currently, I don't have a decent PATA disk luyng around, so I cannot
> verify anything for you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bas.
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-11 14:54 ` Kyle
@ 2004-02-12 8:41 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-02-12 14:08 ` Kyle
2004-02-12 14:32 ` Bas Mevissen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Jamie Lokier @ 2004-02-12 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kyle; +Cc: Bas Mevissen, linux-kernel
Kyle wrote:
> Today I tried with compile the kernel 2.6.1 with:
>
> IGNORE word93 Validation BITS (IDEDMA_IVB) = y
>
> The result looks a bit better, got 30MB/s at /dev/hda and 37MB/s at /dev/hdc
> (38MB/s and 55MB/s at kernel 2.4.20)
Aha...
Have a look at the thread called "[RFC] IDE 80-core cable detect -
chipset-specific code to over-ride eighty_ninty_three()".
It specifically deals with ICH5 and is probably the same problem as
you're seeing.
-- Jamie
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-12 8:41 ` Jamie Lokier
@ 2004-02-12 14:08 ` Kyle
2004-02-12 14:32 ` Bas Mevissen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kyle @ 2004-02-12 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jamie Lokier; +Cc: linux-kernel
Yes I read the thread and re-compile with IDEDMA_IVB= y, got some
performance back, but is still far slower than 2.4
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamie Lokier" <jamie@shareable.org>
To: "Kyle" <kyle@southa.com>
Cc: "Bas Mevissen" <ml@basmevissen.nl>; <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
> Kyle wrote:
> > Today I tried with compile the kernel 2.6.1 with:
> >
> > IGNORE word93 Validation BITS (IDEDMA_IVB) = y
> >
> > The result looks a bit better, got 30MB/s at /dev/hda and 37MB/s at
/dev/hdc
> > (38MB/s and 55MB/s at kernel 2.4.20)
>
> Aha...
>
> Have a look at the thread called "[RFC] IDE 80-core cable detect -
> chipset-specific code to over-ride eighty_ninty_three()".
>
> It specifically deals with ICH5 and is probably the same problem as
> you're seeing.
>
> -- Jamie
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-12 8:41 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-02-12 14:08 ` Kyle
@ 2004-02-12 14:32 ` Bas Mevissen
2004-02-12 19:28 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Bas Mevissen @ 2004-02-12 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jamie Lokier; +Cc: Kyle, linux-kernel
Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> Have a look at the thread called "[RFC] IDE 80-core cable detect -
> chipset-specific code to over-ride eighty_ninty_three()".
>
> It specifically deals with ICH5 and is probably the same problem as
> you're seeing.
>
Ive already pointed Kyle to that thread. But the udma settings seem to
be OK.
So my guess now is that this is not just an issue with the driver only.
Regards,
Bas.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
@ 2004-02-13 10:50 Daniel Blueman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Blueman @ 2004-02-13 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Did you try replacing the two IDE cables you have with new 30cm 80 way
ones? IDE can hide marginal cables with CRC-checking and retrying.
What about swapping them, and/or swapping the drives around, then
comparing the transfer rate of /dev/hda and /dev/hdc again?
"Kyle" <kyle@southa.com> wrote in message
news:<1oClr-6j-15@gated-at.bofh.it>...
> It's already in "Enhanced mode", tried "legacy" and "combined" as well, no
> help.
--
Daniel J Blueman
GMX ProMail (250 MB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS, Virenschutz, 2,99 EUR/Monat...)
jetzt 3 Monate GRATIS + 3x DER SPIEGEL +++ http://www.gmx.net/derspiegel +++
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
@ 2004-02-15 18:48 Kyle
2004-02-15 19:19 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kyle @ 2004-02-15 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: linux-kernel
today since one of my mirrored harddisk (/dev/hda) failed, I removed it from
md-raid1 and now /dev/hdc becomes /dev/hda
hdparm -t /dev/hda gets me ~37MB/s now (before: /dev/hda - 30MB/s,
/dev/hdc - 37MB/s)
maybe there's problem with /dev/hda so it's relatively slower!
However, the result still much slower than kernel 2.4.20 (55MB/s)
Kyle
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-15 18:48 Kyle
@ 2004-02-15 19:19 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2004-02-15 19:23 ` Martin Schlemmer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz @ 2004-02-15 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kyle; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sunday 15 of February 2004 19:48, Kyle wrote:
> today since one of my mirrored harddisk (/dev/hda) failed, I removed it
> from md-raid1 and now /dev/hdc becomes /dev/hda
>
> hdparm -t /dev/hda gets me ~37MB/s now (before: /dev/hda - 30MB/s,
> /dev/hdc - 37MB/s)
>
> maybe there's problem with /dev/hda so it's relatively slower!
>
> However, the result still much slower than kernel 2.4.20 (55MB/s)
Please fill bugzilla entry (htp://bugzilla.kernel.org)
and attach 'dmesg' and 'lspci -vvv -xxx' outputs for 2.4.20 and 2.6.x.
It would be also helpful to narrow down the issue to kernel version when
this slowdown started (2.4.20 -> 2.6.x means too much changes to anybody
sane to even start thinking about going through all of them).
--bart
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-15 19:19 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
@ 2004-02-15 19:23 ` Martin Schlemmer
2004-02-16 13:58 ` Kyle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Martin Schlemmer @ 2004-02-15 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz; +Cc: Kyle, Linux Kernel Mailing Lists
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 991 bytes --]
On Sun, 2004-02-15 at 21:19, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Sunday 15 of February 2004 19:48, Kyle wrote:
> > today since one of my mirrored harddisk (/dev/hda) failed, I removed it
> > from md-raid1 and now /dev/hdc becomes /dev/hda
> >
> > hdparm -t /dev/hda gets me ~37MB/s now (before: /dev/hda - 30MB/s,
> > /dev/hdc - 37MB/s)
> >
> > maybe there's problem with /dev/hda so it's relatively slower!
> >
> > However, the result still much slower than kernel 2.4.20 (55MB/s)
>
> Please fill bugzilla entry (htp://bugzilla.kernel.org)
> and attach 'dmesg' and 'lspci -vvv -xxx' outputs for 2.4.20 and 2.6.x.
>
> It would be also helpful to narrow down the issue to kernel version when
> this slowdown started (2.4.20 -> 2.6.x means too much changes to anybody
> sane to even start thinking about going through all of them).
>
Also a hdparm -i /dev/hda might help I guess (as the small default
read-ahead causes this for many users)
--
Martin Schlemmer
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow
2004-02-15 19:23 ` Martin Schlemmer
@ 2004-02-16 13:58 ` Kyle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kyle @ 2004-02-16 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Schlemmer, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing Lists
Today I tried "lspci -vvv -xxx" with 2.6.1, forgotten to do this with
2.4.20, and I found this:
00:1f.1 IDE interface: Intel Corp. 82801EB ICH5 IDE (rev 02) (prog-if 8a
[Master SecP PriP])
Subsystem: Intel Corp.: Unknown device 4c43
Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr-
Stepping- SERR- FastB2B-
Status: Cap- 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B+ ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort-
<TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-
Latency: 0
Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 18
Region 0: I/O ports at <unassigned>
Region 1: I/O ports at <unassigned>
Region 2: I/O ports at <unassigned>
Region 3: I/O ports at <unassigned>
Region 4: I/O ports at ffa0 [size=16]
Region 5: Memory at 7f800000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=1K]
00:1f.2 IDE interface: Intel Corp.: Unknown device 24d1 (rev 02) (prog-if 8f
[Master SecP SecO PriP PriO])
Subsystem: Intel Corp.: Unknown device 4c43
Control: I/O+ Mem- BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr-
Stepping- SERR- FastB2B-
Status: Cap- 66Mhz+ UDF- FastB2B+ ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort-
<TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-
Latency: 0
Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 18
Region 0: I/O ports at e800 [size=8]
Region 1: I/O ports at e400 [size=4]
Region 2: I/O ports at e000 [size=8]
Region 3: I/O ports at dc00 [size=4]
Region 4: I/O ports at d800 [size=16]
00:1d.2 USB Controller: Intel Corp. 82801EB USB (Hub #3) (rev 02) (prog-if
00 [UHCI])
Subsystem: Intel Corp.: Unknown device 4c43
Control: I/O+ Mem- BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr-
Stepping- SERR- FastB2B-
Status: Cap- 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B+ ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort-
<TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-
Latency: 0
Interrupt: pin C routed to IRQ 18
Region 4: I/O ports at d000 [size=32]
[root@s1 kyle]# hdparm -i /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Model=WDC WD2500JB-00EVA0, FwRev=15.05R15, SerialNo=WD-WMAEH1328328
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec SpinMotCtl Fixed DTR>5Mbs FmtGapReq }
RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=57600, SectSize=600, ECCbytes=74
BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=8192kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16
CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=268435455
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5
AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled
Drive conforms to: device does not report version: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Does it means that ICH5 shared IRQ 18 with USB and cause the performance
problem?
I'll try to submit this to bugzilla.
Kyle
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-02-16 13:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-02-05 16:40 ICH5 with 2.6.1 very slow Kyle
2004-02-05 17:23 ` Bas Mevissen
2004-02-05 17:27 ` Kyle
2004-02-05 17:30 ` Bas Mevissen
2004-02-05 17:33 ` Kyle
2004-02-06 10:10 ` Bas Mevissen
2004-02-06 21:32 ` Kyle
2004-02-09 8:32 ` Bas Mevissen
2004-02-09 8:56 ` Kyle Wong
2004-02-11 14:54 ` Kyle
2004-02-12 8:41 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-02-12 14:08 ` Kyle
2004-02-12 14:32 ` Bas Mevissen
2004-02-12 19:28 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-02-13 3:40 ` Kyle
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-02-13 10:50 Daniel Blueman
2004-02-15 18:48 Kyle
2004-02-15 19:19 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2004-02-15 19:23 ` Martin Schlemmer
2004-02-16 13:58 ` Kyle
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox