Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757504AbYKDQ7S (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:59:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757165AbYKDQ64 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:58:56 -0500 Received: from rtr.ca ([76.10.145.34]:57325 "EHLO mail.rtr.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754098AbYKDQ6z (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:58:55 -0500 Message-ID: <49107F76.60107@rtr.ca> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:59:34 -0500 From: Mark Lord Organization: Real-Time Remedies Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080925) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linus Torvalds , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: [git patches] libata hibernation fixes References: <20081104062734.GA4420@havoc.gtf.org> <200811041753.53342.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: <200811041753.53342.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2545 Lines: 60 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, 4 of November 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> This adds code at a late stage (heading towards -rc4), but does >>> eliminate a particular spin-up overcycling behavior associated with >>> hibernation. >> What does this have to do with hibernation? >> >> If it's a hibernation-only issue, then there is something wrong. > > No, it is not. On some machines it is a power-off issue, on the others it is > hibernation and power-off issue. > >> Also, if it is an issue for normal power-off as well, then I wonder why >> this isn't an issue on Windows. Does windows not spin down disks at all? > > In fact, AFAICS, it is an issue on Windows as well, at least if > other-than-HP-preloaded version of Windows is used. > >> IOW, I really don't think this is correct. >> >> I _do_ think that correct might be: >> >> - maybe we just do something odd and different, triggering some BIOS >> behavior that isn't there under Windows. >> >> So we should power down thigns differently so that the BIOS. >> >> - quite possibly: we just should not spin down disks at all, and just >> flush them and do the "park" command thing. If we're _really_ powering >> off, the disks will spin down on their own when power goes away. Maybe >> that's what Windows does? >> >> So I really don't want to pull this, because I want to get more of an >> explanation for why we need to do this at all. I also don't think this is >> even appropriate at this stage in -rc. >> >> Is it a regression? If so, that just strengthens the questions above - >> what did _we_ start doing wrong that this is needed at all? Let's just >> stop doing that, not add some idiotic black-list for somethign that _we_ >> do wrong. > > This is a regression, but from something like 2.6.25 or even earlier. > I think what happened is we started to power-off disks at one point and these > BIOS-es just don't like that. > > [Note that the issue only appears in _some_ HP boxes, other vendors don't > seem to be affected at all.] .. So, what happens if we just don't ever spin them down from the kernel? Presumably they still spin-down normally (HP or otherwise) when the BIOS actually cuts the power at the end of all of this? Just curious.. -- 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/