On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:01 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>From my understanding, the measurement of "IRQ numbers per second" > > should be based on per-port instead of all ports of a SATA controller. > > No, it should be all ports of a SATA controller. Maybe I didn't state my ideas clearly. Let me explain it by an example. 1 Assume there are 2 active ports(P0 and P1) on a system, they all run under non-NCQ mode 2 During a certain period, P0 is heavily loaded, which generates >1000 interrupts per second; P1 is idle, which generates no interrupt 3 3.1 If the measurement of "IRQ numbers per second" is based on all active ports of a SATA controller, CCC is activated by CCC_PORTS being set to 0x3, CCC_CTL.CC being set to 64(32*2). Then the problem comes: the CCC interrupt will be raised only when the timeout expires, this is because P1 is in idle, thus hCccComplete can never be greater than or equal to 64, the maximum of hCccComplete is 32. 3.2 If the measurement of "IRQ numbers per second" is based on per-port, we can know that P0 is heavily-loaded, then CCC is activated by CCC_PORTS being set to 0x1, CCC_CTL.CC being set to 32. Then CCC can take effect as we have expected :) NOTE: hCccComplete is the term used in section 11 of AHCI spec1.1 > > 4 What should the software specified timeout be? > > I don't have the strong reasoning of a specific timeout value. 500ms? or > > 1000ms? We should trade-off between the delay and overhead. > > 500ms is a lot of latency. I'll use 100ms as timeout value in the code. Thanks, Forrest - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
