Sorry folks - GMail somehow not send my reply to all of you but only one. My bad - haven't noticed it. Anyway - tldr: The provided patch doesn't work. I build the 6.8.1-arch with a simple fix of commenting out the ASMedia block. No matter how it's dealt with - I do understand the issue this change is about to fix - but there has to be some override. Forcing users like me building the entire kernel (and additional modules like ZFS or nVidia gpu drivers) on thier own just for 4 characters in 2 lines (namely /* and */ before and after the block) just isn't acceptable. Greetings Matt ---------- Forwarded message --------- Von: Cryptearth <cryptearth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sa., 16. März 2024 um 14:47 Uhr Subject: Re: Re[2]: ASMedia ASM1166/ASM1064 port restrictions will break cards with port-multipliers To: Conrad Kostecki <conikost@xxxxxxxxxx> @Niklas I tested the patch - but unfortunately it does not work with my card. See the attached log - the fun starts around line 760. This time I also attached the output of lspci -vvv -nn. I haven't checked for any differences. As Hans wrote my card seem to do something way different and out of spec of standards. @Conrad > >I still hassle with the initial report: I couldn't tell any time lost > >or gained. For me the probe of an unused port only takes roughly 0.3 > >seconds. Even multiplying by 128 I only get about 40 seconds. How > >would someone end up with 3-4 minutes? On the other hand: When a drive > >is connected and has to be initialized this does take more time - for > >me roughly 1 second per drive. But even then a jbod with 128 drives > >would take only 2 minutes or so. Is there something I just don't get > >because I don't know or don't understand properly? > > > It may be the difference, that my ASM1064 card is _not_ using any port > multipliers. > It's a Delock 90073 16 port sata controller. It contains 4x ASM1064, > each connected to one PCIe lane. > So hardware PCIe interface is x4. > > Even, when 16 drives are connected, I can clearly see, that's its > waiting on other sata ports for answer and reports after some time a > timeout. It's not the hard drives, which are "slow". Its slow on unused > ports and waits for timeout. Since 4 ASM1064 are present, a total of 128 > ports are reported. Maybe your connected port multiplier JMB575 causes, > that those timeout are not happening then? Oh, now I get it what this is all about. Well, seen from that point it sure is some serious bug. As for some reason (likely the one you mentioned) I don't experience any additional delay I didn't understand what the initial report was about and just thought: Well, someone adding HBAs to thier system sure has some needs for additional storage so it's likely some sort of storage, nas or san - a system that gets reboot once a month or so hence the additional boot time is negligeable. But yea, when using it as direct attached storage in your personal rig or on a workstation at work like I do, I sure can see that even "just a few minutes extra" add up quickly when one has to endure them every week or even every day.
Attachment:
6.8.0-patch.log
Description: Binary data
