On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 16:46 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 13:45 -0500, Paul Blazejowski wrote: > > On recent kernel 2.6.15.6 (or any 2.6.15.x) and latest testing > > 2.6.16-rc6 libata detects and sets wrong UDMA modes for one of the > > SATA-1 drives. This seems to be a bug. > > > > My setup is as follows: > > > > ASUS A8N-SLI-Premium Nforce4 mainboard > > AMD Athlon X2 CPU running SMP > > GCC 3.3.6 > > Slackware 10.2 Linux > > > > The drives are used in RAID1 array (dmraid), they are WDC-WD2000JD > > series purchased few months apart. Sata is compiled in the kernel as > > module sata_nv and functions properly, no errors or any other anomalies > > were noticed but the UDMA mode detection seem wrong on the second drive. > > > > Drive one reports ata3: dev 0 configured for UDMA/100 while drive two > > ata4: dev 0 configured for UDMA/133 > > This bug report is still somewhat unclear. > > What are the correct modes you expect to see? > > Lee > > I belive the modes should say DMA100 because UDMA133 would be mode ATA-7 and DMA100 ATA-6 mode. This is the info i get from hdparm -I on the ata3 drive: DMA: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5 while on the ata4 one: DMA: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5 *udma6 The thing is that the older drive is the one with the mode being set at 133 while the newer with mode 100. I belive they come from the same factory but do carry different firmware revisons. I also tried the drives on sata_sil (sil3114) controller and they show the same modes being detected: sata_sil 0000:05:0a.0: Applying R_ERR on DMA activate FIS errata fix ata5: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF9402080 ctl 0xF940208A bmdma 0xF9402000 irq 23 ata6: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF94020C0 ctl 0xF94020CA bmdma 0xF9402008 irq 23 ata7: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF9402280 ctl 0xF940228A bmdma 0xF9402200 irq 23 ata8: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xF94022C0 ctl 0xF94022CA bmdma 0xF9402208 irq 23 ata5: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113) ata5: dev 0 cfg 49:2f00 82:306b 83:7e01 84:4003 85:3068 86:3c01 87:4003 88:203f ata5: dev 0 ATA-6, max UDMA/100, 390721968 sectors: LBA48 ata5: dev 0 configured for UDMA/100 scsi5 : sata_sil ata6: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113) ata6: dev 0 cfg 49:2f00 82:346b 83:7f61 84:4003 85:3468 86:3c41 87:4003 88:207f ata6: dev 0 ATA-6, max UDMA/133, 390721968 sectors: LBA48 ata6: dev 0 configured for UDMA/100 scsi6 : sata_sil ata7: SATA link down (SStatus 0) scsi7 : sata_sil ata8: SATA link down (SStatus 0) scsi8 : sata_sil Vendor: ATA Model: WDC WD2000JD-60K Rev: 08.0 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 SCSI device sdb: 390721968 512-byte hdwr sectors (200050 MB) sdb: Write Protect is off sdb: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 SCSI device sdb: drive cache: write back SCSI device sdb: 390721968 512-byte hdwr sectors (200050 MB) sdb: Write Protect is off sdb: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 SCSI device sdb: drive cache: write back sdb: sdb1 sdb2 sdb3 sdb4 sd 5:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sdb Vendor: ATA Model: WDC WD2000JD-00H Rev: 08.0 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 SCSI device sdc: 390721968 512-byte hdwr sectors (200050 MB) sdc: Write Protect is off sdc: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 SCSI device sdc: drive cache: write back SCSI device sdc: 390721968 512-byte hdwr sectors (200050 MB) sdc: Write Protect is off sdc: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 SCSI device sdc: drive cache: write back sdc: sdc1 sdc2 sdc3 sdc4 sd 6:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sdc I also see a difference with the transfer rates from hdparm -Tt: ata3 drive (mode UDMA100) shows: Timing buffered disk reads: 172 MB in 3.00 seconds = 57.30 MB/sec while ata4 drive (mode UDMA133) shows: Timing buffered disk reads: 118 MB in 3.03 seconds = 38.96 MB/sec At this point is this due to drive capabilites in regards to modes supported, broken drive? or libata code bug? I am trying to be as clear as possible, anything else i should provide? Thanks, Paul B.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Linux v2.6.16-rc6
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux v2.6.16-rc6
- From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux v2.6.16-rc6
- References:
- Re: Linux v2.6.16-rc6
- From: Paul Blazejowski <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux v2.6.16-rc6
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux v2.6.16-rc6
- Prev by Date: Re: Readahead value 128K? (was Re: Drastic Slowdown of 'fseek()' Calls From 2.4 to 2.6 -- VMM Change?)
- Next by Date: Re: [discuss] Re: 2.6.16-rc5-mm3: spinlock bad magic on CPU#0 on AMD64
- Previous by thread: Re: Linux v2.6.16-rc6
- Next by thread: Re: Linux v2.6.16-rc6
- Index(es):