>> booting the machine today, one hd is missing again ... bootlog attached
>
> Hmmm... strange. I don't really see how it could be escaping. Can
> you please apply the attached patch? It still won't change the
> behavior but should be able to catch where it's escaping.
attached you find two bootlogs, for a correct boot, and with one hd
missing ...
tim
--
[email protected]
http://tim.klingt.org
Art is either a complaint or do something else
John Cage quoting Jasper Johns
Tim Blechmann wrote:
>>> booting the machine today, one hd is missing again ... bootlog attached
>> Hmmm... strange. I don't really see how it could be escaping. Can
>> you please apply the attached patch? It still won't change the
>> behavior but should be able to catch where it's escaping.
>
> attached you find two bootlogs, for a correct boot, and with one hd
> missing ...
Heh heh, this is getting a bit embarrassing. Seems like I wasn't
looking at the right path. Can you please try this one too? If it
says "XXX D7 pulldown quick exit path" and then succeed to probe,
that's the previous failure case so you don't need to keep trying to
reproduce the problem.
Thanks.
--
tejun
On 09/02/2009 04:22 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Tim Blechmann wrote:
>>>> booting the machine today, one hd is missing again ... bootlog attached
>>> Hmmm... strange. I don't really see how it could be escaping. Can
>>> you please apply the attached patch? It still won't change the
>>> behavior but should be able to catch where it's escaping.
>>
>> attached you find two bootlogs, for a correct boot, and with one hd
>> missing ...
>
> Heh heh, this is getting a bit embarrassing. Seems like I wasn't
> looking at the right path. Can you please try this one too? If it
> says "XXX D7 pulldown quick exit path" and then succeed to probe,
> that's the previous failure case so you don't need to keep trying to
> reproduce the problem.
i've attached the two boot logs again ...
tim
--
[email protected]
http://tim.klingt.org
Music is the can opener of the soul. It makes you terribly quiet
inside, makes you aware that there's a roof to your being.
Henry Miller
Tim Blechmann wrote:
> On 09/02/2009 04:22 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Tim Blechmann wrote:
>>>>> booting the machine today, one hd is missing again ... bootlog attached
>>>> Hmmm... strange. I don't really see how it could be escaping. Can
>>>> you please apply the attached patch? It still won't change the
>>>> behavior but should be able to catch where it's escaping.
>>> attached you find two bootlogs, for a correct boot, and with one hd
>>> missing ...
>> Heh heh, this is getting a bit embarrassing. Seems like I wasn't
>> looking at the right path. Can you please try this one too? If it
>> says "XXX D7 pulldown quick exit path" and then succeed to probe,
>> that's the previous failure case so you don't need to keep trying to
>> reproduce the problem.
>
> i've attached the two boot logs again ...
Okay, it was another wrong guess. Can you please try this one?
Thanks a lot for your patience.
--
tejun
>>>>>> booting the machine today, one hd is missing again ... bootlog attached
>>>>> Hmmm... strange. I don't really see how it could be escaping. Can
>>>>> you please apply the attached patch? It still won't change the
>>>>> behavior but should be able to catch where it's escaping.
>>>> attached you find two bootlogs, for a correct boot, and with one hd
>>>> missing ...
>>> Heh heh, this is getting a bit embarrassing. Seems like I wasn't
>>> looking at the right path. Can you please try this one too? If it
>>> says "XXX D7 pulldown quick exit path" and then succeed to probe,
>>> that's the previous failure case so you don't need to keep trying to
>>> reproduce the problem.
>>
>> i've attached the two boot logs again ...
>
> Okay, it was another wrong guess. Can you please try this one?
unfortunately, i haven't been able to get a bootlog of a failure the
issue after rebooting like 20 times with yesterday's linus/master.
once i couldn't boot, since the root hd wasn't found, so i don't think,
the issue is solved, it just doesn't show very frequently ...
the bootlog of a working system is attached, if i experience another
issue, i will send you another bootlog. since i am out of town for a few
days, it may take some time, though ...
tim
--
[email protected]
http://tim.klingt.org
Happiness is a byproduct of function, purpose, and conflict; those who
seek happiness for itself seek victory without war.
William S. Burroughs
On Sat, 2009-09-05 at 00:06 +0200, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> >>>>>> booting the machine today, one hd is missing again ... bootlog attached
> >>>>> Hmmm... strange. I don't really see how it could be escaping. Can
> >>>>> you please apply the attached patch? It still won't change the
> >>>>> behavior but should be able to catch where it's escaping.
> >>>> attached you find two bootlogs, for a correct boot, and with one hd
> >>>> missing ...
> >>> Heh heh, this is getting a bit embarrassing. Seems like I wasn't
> >>> looking at the right path. Can you please try this one too? If it
> >>> says "XXX D7 pulldown quick exit path" and then succeed to probe,
> >>> that's the previous failure case so you don't need to keep trying to
> >>> reproduce the problem.
> >>
> >> i've attached the two boot logs again ...
> >
> > Okay, it was another wrong guess. Can you please try this one?
>
> unfortunately, i haven't been able to get a bootlog of a failure the
> issue after rebooting like 20 times with yesterday's linus/master.
> once i couldn't boot, since the root hd wasn't found, so i don't think,
> the issue is solved, it just doesn't show very frequently ...
>
> the bootlog of a working system is attached, if i experience another
> issue, i will send you another bootlog. since i am out of town for a few
> days, it may take some time, though ...
>
> tim
>
Note, that I did see this once on my desktop, few weeks ago, but only
once.
(After a reboot, everything did work fine)
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
Tim Blechmann wrote:
>>>>>>> booting the machine today, one hd is missing again ... bootlog attached
>>>>>> Hmmm... strange. I don't really see how it could be escaping. Can
>>>>>> you please apply the attached patch? It still won't change the
>>>>>> behavior but should be able to catch where it's escaping.
>>>>> attached you find two bootlogs, for a correct boot, and with one hd
>>>>> missing ...
>>>> Heh heh, this is getting a bit embarrassing. Seems like I wasn't
>>>> looking at the right path. Can you please try this one too? If it
>>>> says "XXX D7 pulldown quick exit path" and then succeed to probe,
>>>> that's the previous failure case so you don't need to keep trying to
>>>> reproduce the problem.
>>> i've attached the two boot logs again ...
>> Okay, it was another wrong guess. Can you please try this one?
>
> unfortunately, i haven't been able to get a bootlog of a failure the
> issue after rebooting like 20 times with yesterday's linus/master.
> once i couldn't boot, since the root hd wasn't found, so i don't think,
> the issue is solved, it just doesn't show very frequently ...
>
> the bootlog of a working system is attached, if i experience another
> issue, i will send you another bootlog. since i am out of town for a few
> days, it may take some time, though ...
Alright, please keep me posted. Another possibility is that it's
timing related and the PHY goes down briefly post-reset. I think I've
found the code path but not sure yet and given how many times my hunch
has been wrong on this case, not too confident either. Anyways, if
it's timing related, too many printks could have thrown it off. If
you can't reproduce the failure with the previous patch, please try
this one and see whether it prints out "XXX: clearing to
ATA_DEV_NONE" on failure.
Thanks.
--
tejun
On 09/05/2009 02:12 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Tim Blechmann wrote:
>>>>>>>> booting the machine today, one hd is missing again ... bootlog attached
>>>>>>> Hmmm... strange. I don't really see how it could be escaping. Can
>>>>>>> you please apply the attached patch? It still won't change the
>>>>>>> behavior but should be able to catch where it's escaping.
>>>>>> attached you find two bootlogs, for a correct boot, and with one hd
>>>>>> missing ...
>>>>> Heh heh, this is getting a bit embarrassing. Seems like I wasn't
>>>>> looking at the right path. Can you please try this one too? If it
>>>>> says "XXX D7 pulldown quick exit path" and then succeed to probe,
>>>>> that's the previous failure case so you don't need to keep trying to
>>>>> reproduce the problem.
>>>> i've attached the two boot logs again ...
>>> Okay, it was another wrong guess. Can you please try this one?
>>
>> unfortunately, i haven't been able to get a bootlog of a failure the
>> issue after rebooting like 20 times with yesterday's linus/master.
>> once i couldn't boot, since the root hd wasn't found, so i don't think,
>> the issue is solved, it just doesn't show very frequently ...
>>
>> the bootlog of a working system is attached, if i experience another
>> issue, i will send you another bootlog. since i am out of town for a few
>> days, it may take some time, though ...
>
> Alright, please keep me posted. Another possibility is that it's
> timing related and the PHY goes down briefly post-reset. I think I've
> found the code path but not sure yet and given how many times my hunch
> has been wrong on this case, not too confident either. Anyways, if
> it's timing related, too many printks could have thrown it off. If
> you can't reproduce the failure with the previous patch, please try
> this one and see whether it prints out "XXX: clearing to
> ATA_DEV_NONE" on failure.
with this patch, i could reproduce it again on the first boot. bootlog
attached.
cheers, tim
--
[email protected]
http://tim.klingt.org
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ / no HTML in email & vCards
X no proprietary attachments
/ \ use open standards
Hello,
Tim Blechmann wrote:
> with this patch, i could reproduce it again on the first boot. bootlog
> attached.
Thanks a lot for testing. The offending commit is 816ab897.
commit 816ab89782ac139a8b65147cca990822bb7e8675
Author: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Date: Wed Oct 22 00:31:34 2008 +0900
libata: set device class to NONE if phys_offline
Reset methods don't have access to phys link status for slave links
and may incorrectly indicate device presence causing unnecessary probe
failures for unoccupied links. This patch clears device class to NONE
during post-reset processing if phys link is offline.
As on/offlineness semantics is strictly defined and used in multiple
places by the core layer, this won't change behavior for drivers which
don't use slave links.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
The problem is that I don't really remember why I added this one back
then. This is incorrect because the condition should be dealt with
later in the reset logic. That didn't work quite as expected and I
ended up adding the above to work around that and it turned out wrong.
I'll dig deeper and find out what was the problem back then.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Hello,
Can you please try the attached patch and report the result? The bug
shouldn't happen now and for cases where it would have happened,
libata will report "link online but device misclassified" and retry.
Thanks.
--
tejun
> Can you please try the attached patch and report the result? The bug
> shouldn't happen now and for cases where it would have happened,
> libata will report "link online but device misclassified" and retry.
this patch cannot be applied onto stable-2.6.31/master ... e.g. the
first chunk is already in there ....
tim
--
[email protected]
http://tim.klingt.org
Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness
Samuel Beckett
Tim Blechmann wrote:
>> Can you please try the attached patch and report the result? The bug
>> shouldn't happen now and for cases where it would have happened,
>> libata will report "link online but device misclassified" and retry.
>
> this patch cannot be applied onto stable-2.6.31/master ... e.g. the
> first chunk is already in there ....
Eh... the first chunk was for the current devel branch. Here's a
version without that one.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Tim Blechmann wrote:
>>> Can you please try the attached patch and report the result? The bug
>>> shouldn't happen now and for cases where it would have happened,
>>> libata will report "link online but device misclassified" and retry.
>> this patch cannot be applied onto stable-2.6.31/master ... e.g. the
>> first chunk is already in there ....
>
> Eh... the first chunk was for the current devel branch. Here's a
> version without that one.
Ping.
--
tejun
>>>> Can you please try the attached patch and report the result? The bug
>>>> shouldn't happen now and for cases where it would have happened,
>>>> libata will report "link online but device misclassified" and retry.
>>> this patch cannot be applied onto stable-2.6.31/master ... e.g. the
>>> first chunk is already in there ....
>>
>> Eh... the first chunk was for the current devel branch. Here's a
>> version without that one.
>
> Ping.
i haven't run into any further issues with this patch ... so i somehow
guess, it solved the problem ...
tim
--
[email protected]
http://tim.klingt.org
After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say
"I want to see the manager."
William S. Burroughs
Tim Blechmann wrote:
>>>>> Can you please try the attached patch and report the result? The bug
>>>>> shouldn't happen now and for cases where it would have happened,
>>>>> libata will report "link online but device misclassified" and retry.
>>>> this patch cannot be applied onto stable-2.6.31/master ... e.g. the
>>>> first chunk is already in there ....
>>> Eh... the first chunk was for the current devel branch. Here's a
>>> version without that one.
>> Ping.
>
> i haven't run into any further issues with this patch ... so i somehow
> guess, it solved the problem ...
In your boot logs, do you ever see messages like "link online but
device misclassified, retrying"?
--
tejun
>>>>>> Can you please try the attached patch and report the result? The bug
>>>>>> shouldn't happen now and for cases where it would have happened,
>>>>>> libata will report "link online but device misclassified" and retry.
>>>>> this patch cannot be applied onto stable-2.6.31/master ... e.g. the
>>>>> first chunk is already in there ....
>>>> Eh... the first chunk was for the current devel branch. Here's a
>>>> version without that one.
>>> Ping.
>>
>> i haven't run into any further issues with this patch ... so i somehow
>> guess, it solved the problem ...
>
> In your boot logs, do you ever see messages like "link online but
> device misclassified, retrying"?
i didn't really pay attention to it ... at my currently running system,
it doesn't show up ... but i will keep my eyes open ...
tim
--
[email protected]
http://tim.klingt.org
After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say
"I want to see the manager."
William S. Burroughs
Tim Blechmann wrote:
>>>>>>> Can you please try the attached patch and report the result? The bug
>>>>>>> shouldn't happen now and for cases where it would have happened,
>>>>>>> libata will report "link online but device misclassified" and retry.
>>>>>> this patch cannot be applied onto stable-2.6.31/master ... e.g. the
>>>>>> first chunk is already in there ....
>>>>> Eh... the first chunk was for the current devel branch. Here's a
>>>>> version without that one.
>>>> Ping.
>>> i haven't run into any further issues with this patch ... so i somehow
>>> guess, it solved the problem ...
>> In your boot logs, do you ever see messages like "link online but
>> device misclassified, retrying"?
>
> i didn't really pay attention to it ... at my currently running system,
> it doesn't show up ... but i will keep my eyes open ...
Can you please reboot several times and see whether that happens? The
bug is quite obscure and I wanna be sure before pushing it upstream.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Tim Blechmann wrote:
>>>>>>>> Can you please try the attached patch and report the result? The bug
>>>>>>>> shouldn't happen now and for cases where it would have happened,
>>>>>>>> libata will report "link online but device misclassified" and retry.
>>>>>>> this patch cannot be applied onto stable-2.6.31/master ... e.g. the
>>>>>>> first chunk is already in there ....
>>>>>> Eh... the first chunk was for the current devel branch. Here's a
>>>>>> version without that one.
>>>>> Ping.
>>>> i haven't run into any further issues with this patch ... so i somehow
>>>> guess, it solved the problem ...
>>> In your boot logs, do you ever see messages like "link online but
>>> device misclassified, retrying"?
>> i didn't really pay attention to it ... at my currently running system,
>> it doesn't show up ... but i will keep my eyes open ...
>
> Can you please reboot several times and see whether that happens? The
> bug is quite obscure and I wanna be sure before pushing it upstream.
Ping?
--
tejun
On 10/02/2009 07:20 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Tim Blechmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Can you please try the attached patch and report the result? The bug
>>>>>>>>> shouldn't happen now and for cases where it would have happened,
>>>>>>>>> libata will report "link online but device misclassified" and retry.
>>>>>>>> this patch cannot be applied onto stable-2.6.31/master ... e.g. the
>>>>>>>> first chunk is already in there ....
>>>>>>> Eh... the first chunk was for the current devel branch. Here's a
>>>>>>> version without that one.
>>>>>> Ping.
>>>>> i haven't run into any further issues with this patch ... so i somehow
>>>>> guess, it solved the problem ...
>>>> In your boot logs, do you ever see messages like "link online but
>>>> device misclassified, retrying"?
>>> i didn't really pay attention to it ... at my currently running system,
>>> it doesn't show up ... but i will keep my eyes open ...
>>
>> Can you please reboot several times and see whether that happens? The
>> bug is quite obscure and I wanna be sure before pushing it upstream.
>
> Ping?
since i have this kernel running, i didn't see any of these messages,
still, my hds always showed up ...
not sure, if this is related to your patch or if the buggy behavior,
just didn't occur ...
tim
--
[email protected]
http://tim.klingt.org
Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness
Samuel Beckett
Hello,
Tim Blechmann wrote:
> since i have this kernel running, i didn't see any of these messages,
> still, my hds always showed up ...
> not sure, if this is related to your patch or if the buggy behavior,
> just didn't occur ...
Can you please reboot several times and see whether libata probing
messages show anything interesting?
Thanks.
--
tejun
>> since i have this kernel running, i didn't see any of these messages,
>> still, my hds always showed up ...
>> not sure, if this is related to your patch or if the buggy behavior,
>> just didn't occur ...
>
> Can you please reboot several times and see whether libata probing
> messages show anything interesting?
unfortunately, i didn't see any libata related messages, which could be
of interest ...
the relevant part looks mostly like this:
[ 1.575438] libata version 3.00 loaded.
[ 2.000903] ata_piix 0000:00:1f.2: version 2.13
[ 2.000916] ata_piix 0000:00:1f.2: PCI INT B -> GSI 20 (level, low) -> IRQ 20
[ 2.000978] ata_piix 0000:00:1f.2: MAP [ P0 P2 P1 P3 ]
[ 2.001212] ata_piix 0000:00:1f.2: setting latency timer to 64
[ 2.001255] scsi0 : ata_piix
[ 2.001372] scsi1 : ata_piix
[ 2.002491] ata1: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xa000 ctl 0x9c00 bmdma 0x9480 irq 20
[ 2.002555] ata2: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0x9880 ctl 0x9800 bmdma 0x9488 irq 20
[ 2.002628] ata_piix 0000:00:1f.5: PCI INT B -> GSI 20 (level, low) -> IRQ 20
[ 2.002691] ata_piix 0000:00:1f.5: MAP [ P0 -- P1 -- ]
[ 2.002920] ata_piix 0000:00:1f.5: setting latency timer to 64
[ 2.002951] scsi2 : ata_piix
[ 2.003034] scsi3 : ata_piix
[ 2.004126] ata3: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xb000 ctl 0xac00 bmdma 0xa480 irq 20
[ 2.004188] ata4: SATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0xa880 ctl 0xa800 bmdma 0xa488 irq 20
[ 2.516133] ata3: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)
[ 2.519253] ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)
[ 2.536470] ata3.00: ATA-7: SAMSUNG HD753LJ, 1AA01112, max UDMA7
[ 2.536536] ata3.00: 1465149168 sectors, multi 16: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32)
[ 2.556453] ata4.00: ATA-8: SAMSUNG HD501LJ, CR100-12, max UDMA7
[ 2.556528] ata4.00: 976773168 sectors, multi 16: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32)
[ 2.556843] ata3.00: configured for UDMA/133
[ 2.576492] ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133
[ 2.856006] ata2.00: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)
[ 2.856081] ata2.01: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
[ 2.856305] ata1.00: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
[ 2.856373] ata1.01: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
[ 2.856437] ata1.01: link offline, clearing class 3 to NONE
[ 2.876344] ata1.00: ATAPI: TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-S223B, SB01, max UDMA/100
[ 2.876716] ata2.00: ATA-7: SAMSUNG HD103UJ, 1AA01118, max UDMA7
[ 2.876782] ata2.00: 1953525168 sectors, multi 16: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32)
[ 2.896332] ata2.00: configured for UDMA/133
[ 2.916132] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
not sure, what this means, though ...
tim
--
[email protected]
http://tim.klingt.org
Just what the hell is the experimental tradition?
Morton Feldman
Hello,
Tim Blechmann wrote:
>>> since i have this kernel running, i didn't see any of these messages,
>>> still, my hds always showed up ...
>>> not sure, if this is related to your patch or if the buggy behavior,
>>> just didn't occur ...
>> Can you please reboot several times and see whether libata probing
>> messages show anything interesting?
>
> unfortunately, i didn't see any libata related messages, which could be
> of interest ...
> the relevant part looks mostly like this:
>
> not sure, what this means, though ...
It means the original condition didn't trigger most likely due to
timing differences. :-( I'll push the patch upstream.
Thanks.
--
tejun