Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-22 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 20.04.2013 23:29, schrieb Jeremy Chadwick: My feeling is that the stalls are mostly from the error handler and the overall time the drive is frozen gets shorter. If it had not _felt_ faster, I'd not have left that in sysctl.conf in the first place. Your understanding of what that sysctl

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-21 Thread Alexander Motin
On 21.04.2013 00:29, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: - The ATA commands which lead up to the error also vary. Many are for write requests, and from some entries I can see that the OS was doing NCQ writes (WRITE FPDMA QUEUED) and then suddenly decided to do a classic 28-bit LBA write (WRITE

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-21 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 02:11:04PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote: On 21.04.2013 00:29, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: - The ATA commands which lead up to the error also vary. Many are for write requests, and from some entries I can see that the OS was doing NCQ writes (WRITE FPDMA QUEUED) and

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-21 Thread Alexander Motin
ATA controller drivers are delaying conflicting commands, avoiding conflicts in device. 21.04.2013 14:32 пользователь Jeremy Chadwick j...@koitsu.org написал: On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 02:11:04PM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote: On 21.04.2013 00:29, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: - The ATA commands which

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-20 Thread Bernd Walter
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:15:32AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: I have just sent more information to the PR at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=157397 The short summary (more info in the PR) is: - limiting tags to 31 does not help - disabling NCQ appears to help in initial

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-20 Thread Bruce Cran
On 04/04/2013 09:00, Matthias Andree wrote: Any good concurrent write exercise tools for Unix that I could run on the Linux ext4 partition that you would propose? benchmarks/fio is good for that. -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-20 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 10:00:18AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: Am 04.04.2013 03:05, schrieb Jeremy Chadwick: { snipping stuff I have no comment on. reference thread: } { http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2013-April/073036.html } One piece of evidence that refutes my

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-04 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 04.04.2013 03:05, schrieb Jeremy Chadwick: Please provide gpart show -p ada1 output, both here and in the PR, if you could. =63 1953525105ada1 MBR (931G) 63 209714337 ada1s1 freebsd [active] (100G) 209714400 800 - free - (400k)

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-03 Thread Alexander Motin
On 02.04.2013 21:39, Matthias Andree wrote: Am 31.03.2013 23:02, schrieb Scott Long: So what I hear you and Matthias saying, I believe, is that it should be easier to force disks to fall back to non-NCQ mode, and/or have a more responsive black-list for problematic controllers. Would this

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-03 Thread Matthias Andree
I have just sent more information to the PR at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=157397 The short summary (more info in the PR) is: - limiting tags to 31 does not help - disabling NCQ appears to help in initial testing, but warrants more testing - error happens during

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-03 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 04.04.2013 01:38, schrieb Jeremy Chadwick: ... While skimming Linux libata code and commits in the past, the only glaringly obvious bug/issue I see is with SB600/SB700 chipsets (the hardware revision apparently matters) and port multiplier (PMP) support and soft resets. Are you using a

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-03 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:15:32AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: I have just sent more information to the PR at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=157397 The short summary (more info in the PR) is: - limiting tags to 31 does not help - disabling NCQ appears to help in initial

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-03 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:19:16AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: Am 04.04.2013 01:38, schrieb Jeremy Chadwick: ... While skimming Linux libata code and commits in the past, the only glaringly obvious bug/issue I see is with SB600/SB700 chipsets (the hardware revision apparently

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-02 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 31.03.2013 23:02, schrieb Scott Long: So what I hear you and Matthias saying, I believe, is that it should be easier to force disks to fall back to non-NCQ mode, and/or have a more responsive black-list for problematic controllers. Would this help the situation? It's hard to justify

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-04-01 Thread Victor Balada Diaz
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 03:02:09PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: On Mar 31, 2013, at 7:04 AM, Victor Balada Diaz vic...@bsdes.net wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack,

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-31 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 31.03.2013 06:00, schrieb Peter Wemm: We're talking about 10.x, so if you want it fixed, you need update with 10.x information. Please put 10.x diagnostics in the PR. I will not. The PR was filed four months before 10-CURRENT branched; I have no reason to assume it were to be no longer

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-31 Thread Victor Balada Diaz
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by having `options ATA_CAM` enabled in all kernels by default. I have a wish to drop

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-31 Thread Scott Long
On Mar 31, 2013, at 7:04 AM, Victor Balada Diaz vic...@bsdes.net wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by having `options

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-31 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 03:02:09PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: On Mar 31, 2013, at 7:04 AM, Victor Balada Diaz vic...@bsdes.net wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack, using

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-30 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 27.03.2013 22:22, schrieb Alexander Motin: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by having `options ATA_CAM` enabled in all kernels by default. I have a wish to drop non-ATA_CAM ata(4) code,

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-30 Thread Peter Wemm
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Matthias Andree mand...@freebsd.org wrote: Am 27.03.2013 22:22, schrieb Alexander Motin: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by having `options ATA_CAM` enabled in

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Alexander Motin
On 28.03.2013 02:43, Adrian Chadd wrote: My main concern with the new stuff is that it requires CAM and that's reasonably big compared to the standalone ATA code. It'd be nice if we could slim down the CAM stack a bit first; it makes embedding it on the smaller devices really freaking painful.

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread John-Mark Gurney
Alexander Motin wrote this message on Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:17 +0200: On 28.03.2013 02:43, Adrian Chadd wrote: My main concern with the new stuff is that it requires CAM and that's reasonably big compared to the standalone ATA code. It'd be nice if we could slim down the CAM stack a bit

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Ian Lepore
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 09:17 +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: On 28.03.2013 02:43, Adrian Chadd wrote: My main concern with the new stuff is that it requires CAM and that's reasonably big compared to the standalone ATA code. It'd be nice if we could slim down the CAM stack a bit first; it

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Aleksandr Rybalko
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:43:07 -0700 Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote: My main concern with the new stuff is that it requires CAM and that's reasonably big compared to the standalone ATA code. It'd be nice if we could slim down the CAM stack a bit first; it makes embedding it on the

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Scott Long
On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote: My main concern with the new stuff is that it requires CAM and that's reasonably big compared to the standalone ATA code. From a code execution standpoint? No, it's not. It'd be nice if we could slim down the CAM stack a

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Scott Long
On Mar 28, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Ian Lepore i...@freebsd.org wrote: On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 09:17 +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: On 28.03.2013 02:43, Adrian Chadd wrote: My main concern with the new stuff is that it requires CAM and that's reasonably big compared to the standalone ATA code. It'd

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Scott Long
On Mar 27, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Matthew Jacob mja...@freebsd.org wrote: On 3/27/2013 2:22 PM, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by having `options ATA_CAM` enabled in all

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Matthew Jacob
On 3/28/2013 8:27 AM, Scott Long wrote: On Mar 27, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Matthew Jacob mja...@freebsd.org wrote: On 3/27/2013 2:22 PM, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Lev Serebryakov
Hello, Aleksandr. You wrote 28 марта 2013 г., 18:09:53: It'd be nice if we could slim down the CAM stack a bit first; it makes embedding it on the smaller devices really freaking painful. AR /me never seen embedded devices with ATA/SATA and less than 64MB of RAM. AR (i386/i486 old machines

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 28 March 2013 09:05, Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org wrote: Yes: USB UMASS. It uses CAM too, and useful for very small systems, like 4MiB FLASH and 16MiB RAM (yes, whole system image, kernel and all, should be packed to 4MiB). Please note, Adrian speaks about CAM, not only CAM +

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Adrian Chadd
.. and before you ask - yes, there are embedded boards with limited RAM that also have ATA ports. :-) Adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message CAJ-Vmo=qATZHubkKZ2heiJ3528e__JG4RLru7LU9rwP5_EwT=g...@mail.gmail.com, Adrian Chadd wri tes: On 28 March 2013 09:05, Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org wrote: adrian@freefall:~/public_html/ath$ cat AP121-nodebug.txt | egrep '(cam_|umass|scsi_)' | awk '{a+=$4} END {print a}' 190904 It

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Ian Lepore wrote: On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 09:17 +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: On 28.03.2013 02:43, Adrian Chadd wrote: My main concern with the new stuff is that it requires CAM and that's reasonably big compared to the standalone ATA code. It'd be nice if we could slim

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-28 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 28 March 2013 10:26, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote: Isn't there some kernel compile-time option to eliminate the huge tables used for errormessages etc ? Yup. It doesn't save all that much in the grand scheme of things. Doubly so since my secondary size constraint is an 896k

Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-27 Thread Alexander Motin
Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by having `options ATA_CAM` enabled in all kernels by default. I have a wish to drop non-ATA_CAM ata(4) code, unused since that time from the head branch to

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-27 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by having `options ATA_CAM` enabled in all kernels by default. I have a wish to drop

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-27 Thread Freddie Cash
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-27 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:35:35PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: On 27.03.2013 23:32, Steve Kargl wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack, using only some controller drivers

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-27 Thread Matthew Jacob
On 3/27/2013 2:22 PM, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by having `options ATA_CAM` enabled in all kernels by default. I have a wish to drop non-ATA_CAM ata(4) code, unused

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-27 Thread Alexander Motin
On 28.03.2013 00:05, Steve Kargl wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:35:35PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: On 27.03.2013 23:32, Steve Kargl wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA stack,

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-27 Thread Steve Kargl
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:22:11AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: On 28.03.2013 00:05, Steve Kargl wrote: Last time I tested the new one, and this was several months ago, the system (a Dell Latitude D530 laptop) would not boot. Probably we should just fix that. Any more info? I can't

Re: Any objections/comments on axing out old ATA stack?

2013-03-27 Thread Adrian Chadd
My main concern with the new stuff is that it requires CAM and that's reasonably big compared to the standalone ATA code. It'd be nice if we could slim down the CAM stack a bit first; it makes embedding it on the smaller devices really freaking painful. Thanks, adrian