From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753483Ab2AOOlK (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jan 2012 09:41:10 -0500 Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:33487 "EHLO mail-qy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752841Ab2AOOlH (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jan 2012 09:41:07 -0500 Message-ID: <4F12E57E.3090805@garzik.org> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 09:41:02 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Andrew Morton , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Lin Ming Subject: Re: [git patches] libata updates for 3.3 References: <20120109003255.GA6598@havoc.gtf.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/14/2012 12:21 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Jeff Garzik 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... ;) Jeff