Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] libata: Add ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_ON_AMD for Samsung 860
 and 870 SSD.
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To:     "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc:     Kate Hsuan <hpa@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>,
        Tor Vic <torvic9@mailbox.org>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210901151643.13562-1-hpa@redhat.com>
 <3e26e7a5-0d99-b993-d5ce-aa517e1bf1bb@redhat.com>
 <yq1h7f24y6f.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
 <238d0841-0f03-928f-5441-89d5c9dcf9b9@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <cd75fa32-8c4d-664e-5adb-f2f325d3c58e@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:50:04 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <238d0841-0f03-928f-5441-89d5c9dcf9b9@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Again,

On 9/2/21 10:46 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 9/2/21 9:01 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>
>> Hans,
>>
>>> So it looks like we actually need to disable NCQ for Samsung 860/870
>>> devices when the SATA controller has a vendor-id of PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI
>>> rather then AMD.
>>
>> That's another great data point!
>>
>> I wonder if there actually is a Samsung problem (given that these drives
>> work fine on other controllers). Or if it is just the queued trim
>> handling that's broken on 1002:4391 controllers from ATI.
>>
>> When I originally experimented with queued trim I had systems I could
>> not get to work. But queued trim worked fine when the same drives were
>> connected to more modern chipsets (note that this was "did not work at
>> all" as opposed to "randomly corrupting data").
>>
>> Do we have any evidence at all of queued trim working with non-Samsung
>> drives on these controllers? Not sure how many modern SATA drives
>> actually implement this feature. Maybe the reason we see Samsung drives
>> in the bug reports is due to a combination of popularity and the fact
>> that these drives actually implement queued trim support.
> 
> The Samsung 860 / 870 series causing issues when queued trim support
> is enabled are quite wide-spread, covering many different controller
> models from all well known controller vendors (Intel, Asmedia, Marvell
> and AMD). So disabling queued-trim support definitely is the right
> thing to do (and we should have done so a long time ago, I am to
> blame for this not being done sooner).
> 
> As for your theory that it is really a problem with the controller
> and not the the SSDs, I honestly do not know, but I doubt it,
> there are no such reports with any other vendor's SSD or newer
> Samsung models, so this seems unlikely.

I just realized that all newer Samsung models are non SATA...

Still I cponsider it likely that some of the other vendors also
implement queued trim support and there are no reports of issues
with the other vendors' SSDs.

Regards,

Hans