On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 09:41 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On 01/14/2012 12:21 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Jeff Garzik<jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Summary (very little excitement at all this time): > >> > >> 0) Will play around with git signed tags with the next update. > >> > >> 1) PM improvements, including runtime suspend/resume work > > > > Hmm. I don't know if this comes from the PM improvements or even this > > particular pull, but links that aren't connected are *really* slow. > > > > Annoyingly so. > > > > My Macbook Air that I finally can resume reliably again used to come > > back almost immediately from resume. No longer. And the reason seems > > to be this: > > > > [ 243.306149] ata_piix 0000:00:1f.2: setting latency timer to 64 > > [ 243.306180] bcma: Found rev 6 PMU (capabilities 0x108C2606) > > [ 246.579648] ata1.01: failed to resume link (SControl 0) > > [ 246.735472] ata1.00: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) > > [ 246.735485] ata1.01: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 0) > > [ 246.743632] ata1.00: ACPI cmd ef/03:46:00:00:00:a0 (SET FEATURES) > > filtered out > > [ 246.744353] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100 > > [ 246.744537] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Starting disk > > [ 247.769806] ata2.00: failed to resume link (SControl 0) > > [ 248.796207] ata2.01: failed to resume link (SControl 0) > > [ 248.807665] ata2.00: SATA link down (SStatus 4 SControl 0) > > [ 248.807681] ata2.01: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 0) > > [ 248.808338] PM: resume of devices complete after 5511.027 msecs > > [ 248.882074] PM: Finishing wakeup. > > > > Notice the basically five-second timeout all basically for "failed to > > resume link: for things that didn't have anything connected to them > > anyway. > > > > This is a bog-standard Intel controller, there's nothing odd there. > > > > I'm pretty sure this used to be much faster, but I haven't bisected > > any of it (and with all the problems I had with resume both due to > > wireless and MCE, I really wouldn't want to even try). > > > > Taking 5.5 seconds to come back from suspend-to-ram really is too > > long. Not *all* of it is the SATA part, but a lot of it is. > > > > For ATA suspend/resume, could we perhaps only resume the ports that > > *used* to have something on them? And then, if somebody has plugged > > something into the others, not consider that a resume thing at all, > > but a hotplug thing that happens *after* the resume? > > > > If it takes five seconds to notice new hardware after a resume, nobody > > cares. But the disk we had before obviously needs to get resumed.. But > > it does seem like it's the "no link" part that takes long. > > We definitely notice new hardware after a resume, but you're right -- it > should not take that long to work through ports that are empty. > > Will take a look tomorrow (kid->doctor+relatives today, uff) at the most > recent PM push; my quick testing did not show any problems, but > suspend/resume varies widely across hardware platforms. I think I might > even have a MacBook I can test. Apple platforms test to be weird too... ;) I just did a quick test with latest git head(122804e) and didn't find the problem either. I'll test other machines. Lin Ming > > Jeff > > > > > -- 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
