From: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git patches] libata updates for 3.3
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:15:34 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1326676534.13517.3.camel@minggr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F12E57E.3090805@garzik.org>
On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 09:41 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 01/14/2012 12:21 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Jeff Garzik<jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Summary (very little excitement at all this time):
> >>
> >> 0) Will play around with git signed tags with the next update.
> >>
> >> 1) PM improvements, including runtime suspend/resume work
> >
> > Hmm. I don't know if this comes from the PM improvements or even this
> > particular pull, but links that aren't connected are *really* slow.
> >
> > Annoyingly so.
> >
> > My Macbook Air that I finally can resume reliably again used to come
> > back almost immediately from resume. No longer. And the reason seems
> > to be this:
> >
> > [ 243.306149] ata_piix 0000:00:1f.2: setting latency timer to 64
> > [ 243.306180] bcma: Found rev 6 PMU (capabilities 0x108C2606)
> > [ 246.579648] ata1.01: failed to resume link (SControl 0)
> > [ 246.735472] ata1.00: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)
> > [ 246.735485] ata1.01: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 0)
> > [ 246.743632] ata1.00: ACPI cmd ef/03:46:00:00:00:a0 (SET FEATURES)
> > filtered out
> > [ 246.744353] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
> > [ 246.744537] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Starting disk
> > [ 247.769806] ata2.00: failed to resume link (SControl 0)
> > [ 248.796207] ata2.01: failed to resume link (SControl 0)
> > [ 248.807665] ata2.00: SATA link down (SStatus 4 SControl 0)
> > [ 248.807681] ata2.01: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 0)
> > [ 248.808338] PM: resume of devices complete after 5511.027 msecs
> > [ 248.882074] PM: Finishing wakeup.
> >
> > Notice the basically five-second timeout all basically for "failed to
> > resume link: for things that didn't have anything connected to them
> > anyway.
> >
> > This is a bog-standard Intel controller, there's nothing odd there.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure this used to be much faster, but I haven't bisected
> > any of it (and with all the problems I had with resume both due to
> > wireless and MCE, I really wouldn't want to even try).
> >
> > Taking 5.5 seconds to come back from suspend-to-ram really is too
> > long. Not *all* of it is the SATA part, but a lot of it is.
> >
> > For ATA suspend/resume, could we perhaps only resume the ports that
> > *used* to have something on them? And then, if somebody has plugged
> > something into the others, not consider that a resume thing at all,
> > but a hotplug thing that happens *after* the resume?
> >
> > If it takes five seconds to notice new hardware after a resume, nobody
> > cares. But the disk we had before obviously needs to get resumed.. But
> > it does seem like it's the "no link" part that takes long.
>
> We definitely notice new hardware after a resume, but you're right -- it
> should not take that long to work through ports that are empty.
>
> Will take a look tomorrow (kid->doctor+relatives today, uff) at the most
> recent PM push; my quick testing did not show any problems, but
> suspend/resume varies widely across hardware platforms. I think I might
> even have a MacBook I can test. Apple platforms test to be weird too... ;)
I just did a quick test with latest git head(122804e) and didn't find
the problem either.
I'll test other machines.
Lin Ming
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-16 1:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-09 0:32 [git patches] libata updates for 3.3 Jeff Garzik
2012-01-14 5:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-15 14:41 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-01-16 1:15 ` Lin Ming [this message]
2012-01-16 5:23 ` Lin Ming
2012-01-16 19:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-16 19:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-16 19:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-17 5:16 ` Lin Ming
2012-01-17 5:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-17 16:51 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-01-17 17:00 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-01-16 19:42 ` Alan Cox
2012-01-16 19:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-16 19:54 ` Alan Cox
2012-01-16 20:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-16 20:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-16 20:27 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-01-16 23:54 ` Alan Cox
2012-01-17 0:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-17 0:18 ` Matthew Garrett
2012-01-16 21:26 ` Matthew Garrett
2012-01-16 21:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-16 22:03 ` Matthew Garrett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1326676534.13517.3.camel@minggr \
--to=ming.m.lin@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).