Re: Errors when copying between drives on a SiI3114 controller under kernel 2.6.18

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:13:40 +0100, Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[cc'ing Carlos again.  please don't drop cc list]

Jonathan Bell wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:49:26 +0100, Jonathan Bell <doggs.lay.eggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:43:18 +0100, Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tejun Heo wrote:
I cannot reproduce your problem here. Can you retest after running the following commands?
 # setpci -s 01:07.0 0c.b=04
# setpci -s 01:08.0 0c.b=04

I forgot something.

* You need to make sata_sil a module. Boot, unload sata_sil if loaded, run above commands, load sata_sil and test.

* If above commands don't work, try =00 instead of =04.

Thanks.

setpci -s 01:07/8.0 0c.b=04 performed, sata_sil inserted...

md5sum crapped out again, similar errors in dmesg as before.

setpci -s 01:07/8.0 0c.b=00 performed, sata_sil inserted...

It worked...
cp ~/hugefile /mnt/sda1 && cp /mnt/sda1/hugefile /mnt/sdb1
&& md5sum /mnt/sda1/hugefile /mnt/sdb1/hugefile

ccf5f9052aa1fac3062c3f1920abb1fc  /mnt/sda1/hugefile
ccf5f9052aa1fac3062c3f1920abb1fc  /mnt/sdb1/hugefile

What does this register do, out of interest? With 00 it took ages and made my load average shoot up to about 6.50!
Apologies for bumping this a mere 2 days later but I felt that progress was being made... Ok, so it's the PCI cache line size register... 08 means a value of 64 bits which corresponds to the line size of my L1/L2 cache, am I correct?

Yes, you're right.

The fact that even with a value of 01 set (for fun) still corrupts the file seems to indicate that the fault is somewhere there, but why? Should I just give up and buy a decent mainboard? :P (currently running A7N8X-Deluxe v2.0, latest 1008 BIOS)

I'm not sure whether the cache line size is the actual problem or the slowdown caused by 0 cacheline size (r/w optimizations based on cacheline size are turned off) hides the problem. I was hoping BIOS messed up while setting cachline size and adjusting it to 4 makes things work.

I would like to know more about this since the only topics on PCI cache line sizes I can find are ones where people are having problems.

I don't know. I think this can be best diagnosed by SIMG. Carlos, does anything ring a bell?

Thanks.


This is where it gets wierd... I may have uncovered a BIOS bug.

I changed the mainboard out as a last-ditch attempt to get this working and BEHOLD! The drives work perfectly. I swapped the A7N8X-D out for an Abit NF7-M (same nForce2 chipset, with the exception of onboard graphics) and used the same hardware as before.

This NF7-M is on loan to me so I cannot use it indefinitely. Any ideas, Tejun?

Worst comes to worst I can buy an old nForce2 board for a minor sum off eBay.

Jonathan



-
To unsubscribe from this list: 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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux