2013-10-13 07:57 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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
>
> I'm not sure the option is actually taking effect properly. There
> should be a message "Disabled all _OSI OS vendors" that shows up in
> dmesg with the ! option. Can you try:
>
> acpi_osi="!" acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
>
> (with the quotes around the ! character).
>
The following command line worked:
acpi_osi= acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
So, it seems that the BIOS is broken. Is there any way to fix this,
without resorting to the hackish DMI checks?
--
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
