From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264954AbTK3RPN (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:15:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264958AbTK3RPM (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:15:12 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:43175 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264954AbTK3RPG (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:15:06 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:13:21 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: Jeff Garzik , "Prakash K. Cheemplavam" , marcush@onlinehome.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eric_mudama@Maxtor.com Subject: Re: Silicon Image 3112A SATA trouble Message-ID: <20031130171321.GA6314@suse.de> References: <3FC36057.40108@gmx.de> <200311301758.53885.bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl> <20031130170806.GZ10679@suse.de> <200311301813.48535.bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311301813.48535.bzolnier@elka.pw.edu.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 30 2003, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > On Sunday 30 of November 2003 18:08, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 30 2003, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > Yes, it would be better to have a per-drive (or hwif) extra limiting > > > > factor if it is needed. For this case it really isn't, so probably not > > > > the best idea :) > > > > > > > > > Tangent: My non-pessimistic fix will involve submitting a single > > > > > sector DMA r/w taskfile manually, then proceeding with the remaining > > > > > sectors in another r/w taskfile. This doubles the interrupts on the > > > > > affected chipset/drive combos, but still allows large requests. I'm > > > > > not terribly > > > > > > > > Or split the request 50/50. > > > > > > We can't - hardware will lock up. > > > > I know the problem. Then don't split 50/50 to the word, my point was to > > split it closer to 50/50 than 1 sector + the rest. > > Oh, I understand now and agree. Cool. BTW to make myself 100% clear, I don't mean "split" as in split the request, merely the amount issued to the hardware. Request splitting has such an ugly ring to it :) -- Jens Axboe