Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269038AbUICOwQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:52:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269056AbUICOwQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:52:16 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:6809 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269038AbUICOwK (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:52:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:50:54 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Alan Cox Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@suse.dk Subject: Re: Nasty IDE crasher in 2.6.9rc1 Message-ID: <20040903145054.GQ1631@suse.de> References: <20040831142335.GA15841@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040831142335.GA15841@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2109 Lines: 51 (suse.dk is not related to suse.de and it helpfully eats all messages sent to unknown users. not so great :( On Tue, Aug 31 2004, Alan Cox wrote: > You never never issue unknown commands to drives. Thats how Mandrake destroyed > CD-ROM drives. I knew this was in -mm and supposed to be getting sorted I was > somewhat horrified to find it in 2.6.9rc1. > > This patch crashes two of my CF cards (one so badly you have to reformat it > to get it back) and anything attached to an IT8212 controller. The correct > fix is to do what the standard actually says and always check for cache > flush. Contrary to the comment in the patch drives do report this correctly > its just that some of them nop unknown commands. > > Please fix this patch segment for rc2, its not just wrong, its dangerous. Ugh, that's bad. I agree with the change, thanks. Linus passed it on. > Another problem with barrier is that it can take several minutes worst case > for the command to complete on a large modern drive (timings c/o friendly > ide drive engineer). That causes two problems I've pointed out to Jens that > we need to fix before barriers are IMHO production grade Can you pass me his results? > 1. Anything based on fairness and latency is screwed. Throughput > apparently is up so it makes sense for some users, and probably > for others we should write cache off as Jens suggested. Yes, it's a tradeoff. The user can decide himself what is most important. It all depends on the work load, of course. > 2. The timeouts on the command issue appear to be too small, and > we will time out and reset the drive in loaded situations. You don't seem to address that in your patch? > Thankfully next generation ATA has both cache bypass writes and tagging. But the tagging still isn't useful for this. Have they added WIN_WRITE_DMA_EXT_QUEUED_FUA? -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/