Linux-ide Archive on
 help / color / Atom feed
* Questions (and a possible bug) regarding the ata_device_blacklist and ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM
@ 2019-09-26 13:04 Stefan Tauner
  2019-09-26 22:01 ` Martin K. Petersen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Tauner @ 2019-09-26 13:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-ide


I am running an MD RAID5 with 3 SSDs (2x Crucial CT500MX500 (FW
M3CR022), 1x Samsung 860 EVO (because it was/is the only decent SSD
with msata; FW RVT41B6Q)) on Debian Buster (with an ancient^Wstable
4.19 kernel). Before this setup I was using a RAID1 and weekly fstrim
runs to issue discards.

Today I became aware of the RAID5 discard issue that led to trim being
disabled on such arrays:

In my research to verify that my drives work fine and if I should
enable it I came across the black (actually white) list in the libata
code. My question is regarding the matching of the model_num field in
the black list. The name and the use of ATA_ID_PROD seem to indicate
that a single ATA "property" is used as the string to match. I don't
know the technical details how this is communicated by the drive but I
assume it's the same thing that smartctl and hdparm output as "Model
Number" and "Device Model" respectively.

If this is correct (is it?) then there is a problem with the list
AFAICT because the Crucial SSD I have reports this field simply as
"CT500MX500SSD4" but the kernel expects "Crucial" at the beginning of
almost all Crucial drives (line 4523+) including the vendor wildcard at
Interestingly, in line 4520 there is an entry for the CT500BX100SSD1
that does not start with "Crucial".

After looking into smartctl's drive database I guess the MX500 [2] (as
well as BX100, BX200, BX300 and BX500 [1]) series stand out in this
regard. This means that all of them do *not* get the
ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM flag set because they are not matched by
any of the model-specific entries nor the cumulative "Crucial*" vendor

I have not tested my drive to actually return zeros after trimming but
from the kernel code I would assume that its intent is to match all
Crucial SSDs and thus it is a bug mine is not matched. If someone
tells me to the preferred method to test it I am happy to do this. If
need be I can also submit a patch (just for MX500? all of the above?).

Is there any way to see which flags the kernel applies to a drive?
Interestingly, "lsblk -D" does only show "0" for the Samsung device
(although AFAICT it is matched by the white list AND reports
"Deterministic read ZEROs after TRIM" according to hdparm. But I don't
know what lsblk actually looks at...?


(Please CC since I am not subscribed)

Dipl.-Ing. Stefan Tauner
Lecturer and former researcher
Embedded Systems Department

University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien
Hoechstaedtplatz 6, 1200 Vienna, Austria

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-09-26 13:04 Questions (and a possible bug) regarding the ata_device_blacklist and ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM Stefan Tauner
2019-09-26 22:01 ` Martin K. Petersen

Linux-ide Archive on

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror linux-ide/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-ide linux-ide/ \
	public-inbox-index linux-ide

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone