2013-10-12 04:06 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 2013-10-01 06:25 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> 2013-09-28 06:55 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2013-09-25 08:31 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2013-09-21 19:04 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following dmesg is stuck in an infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dmesg:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3: lost interrupt (Status 0x50)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frozen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: failed command: READ DMA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: cmd c8/00:08:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/e0 tag 0 dma 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> res 40/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Emask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0x4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (timeout)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: status: { DRDY }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3: soft resetting link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: configured for UDMA/33 (no error)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: device reported invalid CHS sector 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3: EH complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Patch that fixes the infinite loop:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index f9476fb..eeedf80 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2437,6 +2437,14 @@ static void ata_eh_link_report(struct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata_link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *link)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ehc->i.action, frozen,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tries_buf);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (desc)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata_dev_err(ehc->i.dev, "%s\n",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desc);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ehc->i.dev->exce_cnt ++;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ata_dev_warn(ehc->i.dev, "Number of exceptions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> %d\n",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ehc->i.dev->exce_cnt);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + /**
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * The device is failing terribly,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * disable it to prevent damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if(ehc->i.dev->exce_cnt > 2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ata_dev_disable(ehc->i.dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata_link_err(link, "exception Emask 0x%x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "SAct 0x%x SErr 0x%x action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0x%x%s%s\n",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/libata.h b/include/linux/libata.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index eae7a05..fa52ee6 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/libata.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/libata.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -660,7 +660,8 @@ struct ata_device {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devslp_timing[ATA_LOG_DEVSLP_SIZE];
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /* error history */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - int spdn_cnt;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + int spdn_cnt; /* Number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed_downs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + int exce_cnt; /* Number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exceptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happenned */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /* ering is CLEAR_END, read comment above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CLEAR_END
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> struct ata_ering ering;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This doesn't seem like a very good fix. It may prevent the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop but will just prevent that device from functioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be better if we could figure out what was actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have tested the problem with three different computers, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> switched
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to legacy/IDE/compatibility mode, and they didn't have this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course, they could have been set to AHCI mode, and there the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boot normally. Feels strange, but so far I was only able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with a Toshiba MK8052GSX. On the topic of my patch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see why a device which fails so terribly that it reports 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exceptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be disabled. Like in this case, it could cause infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loops.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that this could happen in some cases when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to disable the device, like an error that just happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sporadically and works on retry, or a device you're trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think if I edit the patch in a way, that when an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully completes, it resets exce_cnt to zero. Might as well
>>>>>>>>>>>>> add
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> module_param, which can set the maximum value of exce_cnt, while
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an option to never disable the device. Please don't think me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to force this patch, I just want to learn how all this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> works,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the process try to make it better. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That would be better, but I think you're still going to have an
>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>> with what magic number to pick to avoid disabling devices
>>>>>>>>>>>> inappropriately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Conceptually, disabling the device doesn't really make sense anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone in userspace wants to keep trying to read from that
>>>>>>>>>>>> device,
>>>>>>>>>>>> why would you stop them because of some arbitrary judgement? The
>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel itself isn't "locked up" during this process, anything not
>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked on I/O to that device should be able to continue running, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> that process is only hurting itself. If the system fails to boot
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> another device due to this, this would likely point out some kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem in userspace or the distro boot process being overly
>>>>>>>>>>>> serialized.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have been booting up with the initramfs from ubuntu 13.04,
>>>>>>>>>>> and I have also tried to boot with the ubuntu install cd. They
>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>>>>>>>> continue the boot process. I'm gonna spend the weekend trying to
>>>>>>>>>>> figure
>>>>>>>>>>> out where and why the interrupts don't happen. Whether it be a
>>>>>>>>>>> routing
>>>>>>>>>>> or a hardware issue, which I highly doubt due to the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>> Windows
>>>>>>>>>>> XP SP2 was able to boot up without errors.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you able to get out full dmesg output from a boot attempt and the
>>>>>>>>>> contents of /proc/interrupts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I said before, I am not able to get to the shell, without my
>>>>>>>>> 'symptom
>>>>>>>>> cure'. With my patch I get the following dmesg output, with
>>>>>>>>> some of my debug messages turned off:
>>>>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/5eb5G3Dx
>>>>>>>>> /proc/interrupts is here:
>>>>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/84CJey2D
>>>>>>>>> After yesterday's research, I have come to ata_piix.c . That file looks
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> the real culprit, as my netbook's controller is an Intel ICH7M one,
>>>>>>>>> The values I am getting from the device are very different than those
>>>>>>>>> that are expected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Things I have noticed, but ignored in dmesg:
>>>>>>>>> There is a stack dump, because nobody cared about IRQ#20. I have
>>>>>>>>> ignored
>>>>>>>>> this because it is the EHCI IRQ, and I suppose it has nothing to do
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> ata. The problem is with ata3 or /dev/sdc, while the IRQ happens
>>>>>>>>> with /dev/sda, which works fine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it is likely related to the problem. The kernel thinks this
>>>>>>>> controller is on IRQ 16, but apparently something is raising
>>>>>>>> un-acknowledged interrupts on IRQ 20 and nothing is coming in on IRQ
>>>>>>>> 16. It seems quite likely that this is actually the ATA controller.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mentioned that Windows XP was able to work in this mode. I wonder
>>>>>>>> if it was using the IOAPIC, as if not then the IRQ routing is
>>>>>>>> different which might mask the problem. Do you know what IRQ Device
>>>>>>>> Manager reported for this controller in Windows? And was it using any
>>>>>>>> IRQs over 15 (which would indicate the IOAPIC was in use)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm, according to WinXP's Device manager for this controller,
>>>>>>> it listens to IRQ# 20, and therefore it is using the I/O APIC.
>>>>>>> Now, one question remains where is the error that mismaps
>>>>>>> controller?
>>>>>>> I have created a simple patch which seems to fix this:
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> @@ -1704,6 +1767,8 @@ static int piix_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>>>>>> const
>>>>>>> struct pci_device_id *ent)
>>>>>>> hpriv->map = piix_init_sata_map(pdev, port_info,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> piix_map_db_table[ent->driver_data]);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + if(pdev->vendor == 0x8086 && pdev->device == 0x27C4)
>>>>>>> + pdev->irq = 20;
>>>>>>> rc = ata_pci_bmdma_prepare_host(pdev, ppi, &host);
>>>>>>> if (rc)
>>>>>>> return rc;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I am more than sure that this is not the way
>>>>>>> to solve this problem. Do you have any idea on where
>>>>>>> the ideal place would be to implement a fix?
>>>>>>> According to specs of ICH7M, which is essentially the
>>>>>>> same as ICH6M, we need to check on what interrupt pin
>>>>>>> is the SATA controller, and after that check which IRQ line
>>>>>>> is connected to the I/O APIC and decide the IRQ's number
>>>>>>> on those findings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specs of ICH7:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/datasheet/i-o-controller-hub-7-datasheet.pdf
>>>>>>> Device 31 Interrupt Route Register: Chapter 7.1.46
>>>>>>> Device 31 Interrupt Pin Register: Chapter 7.1.41
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The SATA controller is always Device 31.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would appear that something is messing up with the ACPI IRQ routing
>>>>>> on this machine that's causing us to think the controller is on the
>>>>>> wrong IRQ. CCing the linux-acpi list to see if anyone has some
>>>>>> additional debugging suggestions. I suspect that dumping the DSDT is
>>>>>> likely the first step though. If you can get IASL installed, you can
>>>>>> do something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cat /sys/firmware/acpi/tables/DSDT > dsdt.aml
>>>>>> iasl -d dsdt.aml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That should spit out a dsdt.dsl file which would hopefully have the
>>>>>> info needed to figure out what's going on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the disassembled DSDT table:
>>>>> http://pastebin.com/LWNVht9H
>>>>> The SATA controller is at line 5206.
>>>>> I also disassembled the SSDT, but nothing interesting was there:
>>>>> http://pastebin.com/fus5sxU8
>>>>>
>>>>> I disabled the usage of ACPI for IRQs with acpi=noirq,
>>>>> and it successfully booted up setting itself to IRQ#3.
>>>>> This makes me think that this is the BIOS's fault.
>>>>> I think it would be possible to create a DMI check
>>>>> and forcibly set the irq to 20 if the DMI matches.
>>>>> Any comments on this?
>>>>
>>>> The BIOS may be doing something funky, but since Windows apparently
>>>> can figure out it's on IRQ 20, Linux presumably should be able to as
>>>> well. DMI checks should be the last resort - Windows almost certainly
>>>> doesn't have any machine-specific logic here, and it's hard to tell
>>>> what other machine models could be affected. With ACPI stuff, we
>>>> generally just need to do the same thing Windows does for things to
>>>> work reliably, and DMI checks are more of a hack workaround than a
>>>> real fix.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try and have a look at the DSDT within the next few days and see
>>>> if I can figure anything out, unless someone beats me to it.
>>>
>>> I haven't gone into too much detail, but one thing I noticed with the
>>> DSDT is that there appear to be some _OSI checks for Windows 2006
>>> (i.e. Vista) that seem to affect various things, including potentially
>>> the PCI IRQ routing table. It's possible that their IRQ routing table
>>> is broken for legacy mode with an ACPI OS supporting Vista (as current
>>> Linux versions do). Could be this slipped through testing if they only
>>> tested AHCI mode with Vista installed.
>>>
>>> You can try booting with the kernel parameters
>>>
>>> acpi_osi=! acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
>>>
>>> That should make the BIOS think we are Windows XP and bypass the Vista
>>> code path. If that works, then you might want to check for a BIOS
>>> update on this machine.
>>>
>>
>> First of all, sorry for the late reply. I was kinda busy.
>>
>> I tried what you suggested but unfortunately the problem persists.
>> This makes me believe that Windows XP does have somekind of DMI check here.
>> Of course, while a BIOS update may solve this, I would prefer that Linux
>> should also be able to boot up with this broken BIOS as well.
>>
>> If you are certain that WinXP doesn't use DMI checks,
>> it could be that WinXP's driver of ICH7M's SATA controller applies
>> a quirk and sets that irq line to #20.
>
> Can you post the dmesg output from a bootup attempt with those options?
>
> You may also want to try adding just: acpi_osi=!
>
None of the 3 possible combinations succeeded to boot.
Here are a couple of dmesgs:
Params: acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
http://pastebin.com/vF3BSuhc
Params: acpi_osi=! acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
http://pastebin.com/BuUzc3es
Params: acpi_osi=!
http://pastebin.com/u7uRx8Ru
--
Regards,
Levente Kurusa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
