Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751745AbXAOAW4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:22:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751749AbXAOAWz (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:22:55 -0500 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:44349 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751725AbXAOAWz (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:22:55 -0500 Message-ID: <45AAC95B.1020708@garzik.org> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:22:51 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061219) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Hancock CC: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Steinbrink?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, htejun@gmail.com Subject: Re: SATA exceptions with 2.6.20-rc5 References: <45AAC039.1020808@shaw.ca> In-Reply-To: <45AAC039.1020808@shaw.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.1.7 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.3 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1689 Lines: 45 Robert Hancock wrote: > Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote: >> Hi, >> >> with 2.6.20-rc{2,4,5} (no other tested yet) I see SATA exceptions quite >> often, with 2.6.19 there are no such exceptions. dmesg and lspci -v >> output follows. In the meantime, I'll start bisecting. > > ... > >> ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 frozen >> ata1.00: cmd e7/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 tag 0 cdb 0x0 data 0 in >> res 40/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x4 (timeout) >> ata1: soft resetting port >> ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300) >> ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133 >> ata1: EH complete >> SCSI device sda: 160086528 512-byte hdwr sectors (81964 MB) >> sda: Write Protect is off >> sda: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 >> SCSI device sda: write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't >> support DPO or FUA > > Looks like all of these errors are from a FLUSH CACHE command and the > drive is indicating that it is no longer busy, so presumably done. > That's not a DMA-mapped command, so it wouldn't go through the ADMA > machinery and I wouldn't have expected this to be handled any > differently from before. Curious.. It's possible the flush-cache command takes longer than 30 seconds, if the cache is large, contents are discontiguous, etc. It's a pathological case, but possible. Or maybe flush-cache doesn't get a 30 second timeout, and it should...? (thinking out loud) Jeff - 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/