On Sunday, 9 September 2007 11:20, Maciek Rutecki wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki pisze:
> >> Shutdown is completely broken on HP NX6??? laptops.
> >
> > It's not completely broken, it just handles disks incorrectly and we are not
> > sure whether or not there are any serious consequences of that.
Rafael J. Wysocki pisze:
>> Shutdown is completely broken on HP NX6??? laptops.
>
> It's not completely broken, it just handles disks incorrectly and we are not
> sure whether or not there are any serious consequences of that. Moreover,
> it has happened for a long time now, AFAICT, so that's
Rafael J. Wysocki pisze:
Shutdown is completely broken on HP NX6??? laptops.
It's not completely broken, it just handles disks incorrectly and we are not
sure whether or not there are any serious consequences of that. Moreover,
it has happened for a long time now, AFAICT, so that's not a
On Sunday, 9 September 2007 11:20, Maciek Rutecki wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki pisze:
Shutdown is completely broken on HP NX6??? laptops.
It's not completely broken, it just handles disks incorrectly and we are not
sure whether or not there are any serious consequences of that. Moreover,
On Saturday, 8 September 2007 17:32, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 05/08/2007, Michał sed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Greetings
> >
> > I'm experiencing double disk spin down issue on my HP nx6310 laptop
> > during shut down and suspend to disk. The drive is power down on "Will
> > now
On Saturday, 8 September 2007 17:32, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
On 05/08/2007, Michał sed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings
I'm experiencing double disk spin down issue on my HP nx6310 laptop
during shut down and suspend to disk. The drive is power down on Will
now halt message
Thomas Renninger wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 15:16 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
firmwarekit-discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (added to CC list)
see: http://linuxfirmwarekit.org/
But if I understand this problem right, this won't be easy.
The ACPI tables are just parsed with system ("iasl ...")
Thomas Renninger wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 15:16 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
firmwarekit-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] (added to CC list)
see: http://linuxfirmwarekit.org/
But if I understand this problem right, this won't be easy.
The ACPI tables are just parsed with system (iasl ...) and
On Wednesday, 8 August 2007 14:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 August 2007 04:56, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, on my box (nx6325) with the appended (experimental) patch applied
> > > on top of 2.6.23-rc1 with the patchset from
> > >
On Thursday, 9 August 2007 17:06, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > >> Oh... crap, so acpi wants to sync cache on shutdown. I wonder whether
> > >> it spins down the disk correctly. Does emergency unload count increase
> > >> after each power down? Also, please post the result of 'dmidecode'.
>
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 15:16 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > firmwarekit-discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (added to CC list)
> > > see: http://linuxfirmwarekit.org/
> > >
> > > But if I understand this problem right, this won't be easy.
> > > The ACPI tables are just parsed with system ("iasl
Hi!
> > firmwarekit-discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (added to CC list)
> > see: http://linuxfirmwarekit.org/
> >
> > But if I understand this problem right, this won't be easy.
> > The ACPI tables are just parsed with system ("iasl ...") and syntactical
> > errors/warnings are printed out.
> > I
Hi!
> >> Oh... crap, so acpi wants to sync cache on shutdown. I wonder whether
> >> it spins down the disk correctly. Does emergency unload count increase
> >> after each power down? Also, please post the result of 'dmidecode'.
> >
> > I know that my Compaq X1000-series laptop does do some
Hi!
Oh... crap, so acpi wants to sync cache on shutdown. I wonder whether
it spins down the disk correctly. Does emergency unload count increase
after each power down? Also, please post the result of 'dmidecode'.
I know that my Compaq X1000-series laptop does do some kind of ACPI
Hi!
firmwarekit-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] (added to CC list)
see: http://linuxfirmwarekit.org/
But if I understand this problem right, this won't be easy.
The ACPI tables are just parsed with system (iasl ...) and syntactical
errors/warnings are printed out.
I also thought about a
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 15:16 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
firmwarekit-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] (added to CC list)
see: http://linuxfirmwarekit.org/
But if I understand this problem right, this won't be easy.
The ACPI tables are just parsed with system (iasl ...) and
On Thursday, 9 August 2007 17:06, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Oh... crap, so acpi wants to sync cache on shutdown. I wonder whether
it spins down the disk correctly. Does emergency unload count increase
after each power down? Also, please post the result of 'dmidecode'.
I know
On Wednesday, 8 August 2007 14:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 August 2007 04:56, Tejun Heo wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, on my box (nx6325) with the appended (experimental) patch applied
on top of 2.6.23-rc1 with the patchset from
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Mark Lord wrote:
> > Heh.. I haven't instrumented it yet, but I did discover a bit more about
> > it:
> >
> > The Power-Off_Retract_Count incrmenents *only* when there's data in the
> > on-drive write-cache. So if I haven't written anything significantly
> > large before
Tejun Heo wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
Further to this, if I have an active-writer running at the time of suspend,
then even my scripted "sleep 1" is not good enough, as additional writes
are still happening before/after the flush.
Now I'll reboot and try it with the "sleep 1" hardcoded inside
Mark Lord wrote:
> Further to this, if I have an active-writer running at the time of suspend,
> then even my scripted "sleep 1" is not good enough, as additional writes
> are still happening before/after the flush.
>
> Now I'll reboot and try it with the "sleep 1" hardcoded inside
>
Mark Lord wrote:
My suspend script now has this little chunk of code at the point
where it actually does the suspend-to-RAM:
sync; sync
hdparm -F /dev/sda ## flush drive write cache
sleep 1 ## allow time for the flush to complete
echo mem > /sys/power/state ##
Mark Lord wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
..
FWIW, Tejun, with 2.6.22, my new Seagate 160GB SATA drive (notebook)
increments the "Power-Off_Retract_Count" on each suspend-to-RAM operation.
It does not do any double spin-up/spin-down things though.
Hmmm.. It shouldn't. libata now
Mark Lord wrote:
> Heh.. I haven't instrumented it yet, but I did discover a bit more about
> it:
>
> The Power-Off_Retract_Count incrmenents *only* when there's data in the
> on-drive write-cache. So if I haven't written anything significantly large
> before suspending, then it often does NOT
Tejun Heo wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Michael Sedkowski wrote:
>>> Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 03:43 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
Does emergency unload count increase
after each power down?
>>> I think I got it.
>>> Using smartctl I've done a test and shut
Mark Lord wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Michael Sedkowski wrote:
>>> Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 03:43 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
Does emergency unload count increase
after each power down?
>>> I think I got it.
>>> Using smartctl I've done a test and shut down, then repeted the
Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 03:43 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
Does emergency unload count increase
after each power down?
I think I got it.
Using smartctl I've done a test and shut down, then repeted the test.
The only values that where diffrent
On Wednesday, 8 August 2007 02:23, Robert Hancock wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Michael Sedkowski wrote:
> >> Hmmm... If the problem only shows up
On Wednesday, 8 August 2007 04:56, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Well, on my box (nx6325) with the appended (experimental) patch applied
> > on top of 2.6.23-rc1 with the patchset from
> > http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/hibernation_and_suspend/2.6.23-rc2/patches/ , the
> > double spin
Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 23:28 +0200, Maciej Rutecki napisał(a):
> > > Well, on my box (nx6325) with the appended (experimental) patch applied
> > > on top of 2.6.23-rc1 with the patchset from
> >
> > s/2.6.23-rc1/2.6.23-rc2/
> >
>
> HP nx 6310, _old_ shutdown 2.6.23-rc2+above patches:
>
>
Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 23:28 +0200, Maciej Rutecki napisał(a):
Well, on my box (nx6325) with the appended (experimental) patch applied
on top of 2.6.23-rc1 with the patchset from
s/2.6.23-rc1/2.6.23-rc2/
HP nx 6310, _old_ shutdown 2.6.23-rc2+above patches:
1. Before:
On Wednesday, 8 August 2007 04:56, Tejun Heo wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, on my box (nx6325) with the appended (experimental) patch applied
on top of 2.6.23-rc1 with the patchset from
http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/hibernation_and_suspend/2.6.23-rc2/patches/ , the
double spin down
On Wednesday, 8 August 2007 02:23, Robert Hancock wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be
Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 03:43 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
Does emergency unload count increase
after each power down?
I think I got it.
Using smartctl I've done a test and shut down, then repeted the test.
The only values that where diffrent
Mark Lord wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 03:43 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
Does emergency unload count increase
after each power down?
I think I got it.
Using smartctl I've done a test and shut down, then repeted the test.
The only values
Tejun Heo wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 03:43 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
Does emergency unload count increase
after each power down?
I think I got it.
Using smartctl I've done a test and shut down, then repeted
Mark Lord wrote:
Heh.. I haven't instrumented it yet, but I did discover a bit more about
it:
The Power-Off_Retract_Count incrmenents *only* when there's data in the
on-drive write-cache. So if I haven't written anything significantly large
before suspending, then it often does NOT
Mark Lord wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
..
FWIW, Tejun, with 2.6.22, my new Seagate 160GB SATA drive (notebook)
increments the Power-Off_Retract_Count on each suspend-to-RAM operation.
It does not do any double spin-up/spin-down things though.
Hmmm.. It shouldn't. libata now
Mark Lord wrote:
My suspend script now has this little chunk of code at the point
where it actually does the suspend-to-RAM:
sync; sync
hdparm -F /dev/sda ## flush drive write cache
sleep 1 ## allow time for the flush to complete
echo mem /sys/power/state ##
Mark Lord wrote:
Further to this, if I have an active-writer running at the time of suspend,
then even my scripted sleep 1 is not good enough, as additional writes
are still happening before/after the flush.
Now I'll reboot and try it with the sleep 1 hardcoded inside
sd_suspend().
Hmmm...
Tejun Heo wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
Further to this, if I have an active-writer running at the time of suspend,
then even my scripted sleep 1 is not good enough, as additional writes
are still happening before/after the flush.
Now I'll reboot and try it with the sleep 1 hardcoded inside
Tejun Heo wrote:
Mark Lord wrote:
Heh.. I haven't instrumented it yet, but I did discover a bit more about
it:
The Power-Off_Retract_Count incrmenents *only* when there's data in the
on-drive write-cache. So if I haven't written anything significantly
large before suspending, then
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
You *do* have to worry about it in any box you turn off daily. Desktop
HDs will croak fast in that scenario, laptop HDs less so, but still too
fast. A very good laptop HD can last about 20k emergency unloads (this
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Robert Hancock wrote:
>> You *do* have to worry about it in any box you turn off daily. Desktop
>> HDs will croak fast in that scenario, laptop HDs less so, but still too
>> fast. A very good laptop HD can last about 20k emergency unloads (this
>> is a unit that can do about
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Well, on my box (nx6325) with the appended (experimental) patch applied
> on top of 2.6.23-rc1 with the patchset from
> http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/hibernation_and_suspend/2.6.23-rc2/patches/ , the
> double spin down doesn't occur during hibernation and the system is shut
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
> I did some additional checking today...
> On kernels prior to 2.6.22 line, the bug exists and manifests itself
> exactly the same way. However, when I removed the "-h" flag
> from /etc/init.d/halt, the drive spins down only once on "Power down"
> message and there is no
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be that ACPI is
pulling unnecessary stunt. Please apply the
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
emergency unload. Emergency unload does shorten the lifespan of the
disk but you don't have to worry too much about it. Disks are designed
to withstand certain number of emergency unloads.
You *do* have to worry about
On Tuesday, 7 August 2007 23:28, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
> > > Well, on my box (nx6325) with the appended (experimental) patch applied
> > > on top of 2.6.23-rc1 with the patchset from
> >
> > s/2.6.23-rc1/2.6.23-rc2/
> >
>
> HP nx 6310, _old_ shutdown 2.6.23-rc2+above patches:
>
> 1. Before:
>
> > Well, on my box (nx6325) with the appended (experimental) patch applied
> > on top of 2.6.23-rc1 with the patchset from
>
> s/2.6.23-rc1/2.6.23-rc2/
>
HP nx 6310, _old_ shutdown 2.6.23-rc2+above patches:
1. Before:
rutek:/home/maciek# /usr/sbin/smartctl --all -d ata /dev/sda | grep
On Tuesday, 7 August 2007 22:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 August 2007 22:09, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
> > 2007/8/7, Michael Sedkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I did some additional checking today...
> > > On kernels prior to 2.6.22 line, the bug exists and manifests itself
> > >
On Tuesday, 7 August 2007 22:09, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
> 2007/8/7, Michael Sedkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I did some additional checking today...
> > On kernels prior to 2.6.22 line, the bug exists and manifests itself
> > exactly the same way. However, when I removed the "-h" flag
> > from
2007/8/7, Michael Sedkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I did some additional checking today...
> On kernels prior to 2.6.22 line, the bug exists and manifests itself
> exactly the same way. However, when I removed the "-h" flag
> from /etc/init.d/halt, the drive spins down only once on "Power down"
>
I did some additional checking today...
On kernels prior to 2.6.22 line, the bug exists and manifests itself
exactly the same way. However, when I removed the "-h" flag
from /etc/init.d/halt, the drive spins down only once on "Power down"
message and there is no sign of the bug and the emergency
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 15:41 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Robert Hancock wrote:
> > Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> Michael Sedkowski wrote:
> Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be that
> ACPI is
> pulling unnecessary stunt. Please apply the attached patch and report
>
Robert Hancock wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Yeah, that seems to be what's going on. I don't think we have any other
>> choice than blacklisting those notebooks. This is a mess. How does the
>> other OS cope with this?
>
> Quite possible that it gets a double spindown with these laptop/drive
>
Tejun Heo wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be that
ACPI is
pulling unnecessary stunt. Please apply the attached patch and report
when the disk spins down and up.
Disk spins down on "Pre-shutdown
Thomas Renninger wrote:
>>> I'd also suggest adding a FAIL to the Linux firmware toolkit to any DSDT
>>> doing this. Who should we prod to add that check?
>> Dunno how the firmware toolkit works but this one can be pretty
>> difficult to test (if it were easy, we could test it in libata) as it
>>
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 22:32 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> approximately translates into "if you have too many boatmen on a ship,
> it goes to mountain". We also have a
Thomas Renninger wrote:
Any chances of changing things
so that we inspect/snoop all tasks sent to the device, and filter them
out, or react to them accordingly?
>>> No, we can't unless we snoop ACPI method execution and detect accesses
>>> to IO ports or iomem regions. It's not
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
approximately translates into "if you have too many boatmen on a ship,
it goes to mountain". We also have a bunch of Toshiba laptops which
>>> Yeah, that's a problem. But we
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >> approximately translates into "if you have too many boatmen on a ship,
> >> it goes to mountain". We also have a bunch of Toshiba laptops which
> >
> > Yeah, that's a problem. But we can avoid it if we start
Hello, Henrique.
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> approximately translates into "if you have too many boatmen on a ship,
>> it goes to mountain". We also have a bunch of Toshiba laptops which
>
> Yeah, that's a problem. But we can avoid it if we start snooping what ACPI
> is asking us to
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 09:51 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >> Michael Sedkowski wrote:
---snip---
> > > Any chances of changing things
> > > so that we
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> emergency unload. Emergency unload does shorten the lifespan of the
> disk but you don't have to worry too much about it. Disks are designed
> to withstand certain number of emergency unloads.
You *do* have to worry about it in any box you turn off daily.
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> Michael Sedkowski wrote:
> Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be that ACPI is
> pulling unnecessary stunt. Please apply the attached patch and
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
> Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 15:56 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
>> 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age
>> Always - 388
>>
>> I think this is the one. You can test it by forcefully powering off
>> the
>> machine (press power
Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 15:56 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
> You can test it by forcefully powering off the
> machine (press power button for several secs or disconnect AC and
> battery) and see whether the count increases.
Forgot to mention that double spin down does not happen when the
Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 15:56 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
> 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age
> Always - 388
>
> I think this is the one. You can test it by forcefully powering off
> the
> machine (press power button for several secs or
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
> Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 03:43 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
>> Does emergency unload count increase
>> after each power down?
>
> I think I got it.
> Using smartctl I've done a test and shut down, then repeted the test.
> The only values that where diffrent are
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be that ACPI is
pulling unnecessary stunt. Please apply the attached patch and report
when the disk spins down and up.
>>>
Robert Hancock wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be that
ACPI is
pulling unnecessary stunt. Please apply the attached patch and report
when the disk spins down and up.
>>> Disk spins down on
Robert Hancock wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be that
ACPI is
pulling unnecessary stunt. Please apply the attached patch and report
when the disk spins down and up.
Disk spins down on Pre-shutdown prepare and then
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be that ACPI is
pulling unnecessary stunt. Please apply the attached patch and report
when the disk spins down and up.
Disk spins down
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 03:43 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
Does emergency unload count increase
after each power down?
I think I got it.
Using smartctl I've done a test and shut down, then repeted the test.
The only values that where diffrent are
Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 15:56 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age
Always - 388
I think this is the one. You can test it by forcefully powering off
the
machine (press power button for several secs or disconnect AC
Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 15:56 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
You can test it by forcefully powering off the
machine (press power button for several secs or disconnect AC and
battery) and see whether the count increases.
Forgot to mention that double spin down does not happen when the
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Dnia 07-08-2007, Wt o godzinie 15:56 +0900, Tejun Heo napisał(a):
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age
Always - 388
I think this is the one. You can test it by forcefully powering off
the
machine (press power button for
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be that ACPI is
pulling unnecessary stunt. Please apply the attached patch and report
when
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
emergency unload. Emergency unload does shorten the lifespan of the
disk but you don't have to worry too much about it. Disks are designed
to withstand certain number of emergency unloads.
You *do* have to worry about it in any box you turn off daily.
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 09:51 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
---snip---
Any chances of changing things
so that we inspect/snoop all tasks
Hello, Henrique.
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
approximately translates into if you have too many boatmen on a ship,
it goes to mountain. We also have a bunch of Toshiba laptops which
Yeah, that's a problem. But we can avoid it if we start snooping what ACPI
is asking us to deliver
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
approximately translates into if you have too many boatmen on a ship,
it goes to mountain. We also have a bunch of Toshiba laptops which
Yeah, that's a problem. But we can avoid it if we start snooping what ACPI
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
approximately translates into if you have too many boatmen on a ship,
it goes to mountain. We also have a bunch of Toshiba laptops which
Yeah, that's a problem. But we can avoid it if
Thomas Renninger wrote:
Any chances of changing things
so that we inspect/snoop all tasks sent to the device, and filter them
out, or react to them accordingly?
No, we can't unless we snoop ACPI method execution and detect accesses
to IO ports or iomem regions. It's not going through any
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 22:32 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
approximately translates into if you have too many boatmen on a ship,
it goes to mountain. We also have a bunch of Toshiba
Thomas Renninger wrote:
I'd also suggest adding a FAIL to the Linux firmware toolkit to any DSDT
doing this. Who should we prod to add that check?
Dunno how the firmware toolkit works but this one can be pretty
difficult to test (if it were easy, we could test it in libata) as it
involves
Tejun Heo wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be that
ACPI is
pulling unnecessary stunt. Please apply the attached patch and report
when the disk spins down and up.
Disk spins down on Pre-shutdown
Robert Hancock wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Yeah, that seems to be what's going on. I don't think we have any other
choice than blacklisting those notebooks. This is a mess. How does the
other OS cope with this?
Quite possible that it gets a double spindown with these laptop/drive
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 15:41 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be that
ACPI is
pulling unnecessary stunt. Please apply the attached patch and report
when the disk spins down
I did some additional checking today...
On kernels prior to 2.6.22 line, the bug exists and manifests itself
exactly the same way. However, when I removed the -h flag
from /etc/init.d/halt, the drive spins down only once on Power down
message and there is no sign of the bug and the emergency
2007/8/7, Michael Sedkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I did some additional checking today...
On kernels prior to 2.6.22 line, the bug exists and manifests itself
exactly the same way. However, when I removed the -h flag
from /etc/init.d/halt, the drive spins down only once on Power down
message and
On Tuesday, 7 August 2007 22:09, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
2007/8/7, Michael Sedkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I did some additional checking today...
On kernels prior to 2.6.22 line, the bug exists and manifests itself
exactly the same way. However, when I removed the -h flag
from
On Tuesday, 7 August 2007 22:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 August 2007 22:09, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
2007/8/7, Michael Sedkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I did some additional checking today...
On kernels prior to 2.6.22 line, the bug exists and manifests itself
exactly the same
Well, on my box (nx6325) with the appended (experimental) patch applied
on top of 2.6.23-rc1 with the patchset from
s/2.6.23-rc1/2.6.23-rc2/
HP nx 6310, _old_ shutdown 2.6.23-rc2+above patches:
1. Before:
rutek:/home/maciek# /usr/sbin/smartctl --all -d ata /dev/sda | grep
On Tuesday, 7 August 2007 23:28, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
Well, on my box (nx6325) with the appended (experimental) patch applied
on top of 2.6.23-rc1 with the patchset from
s/2.6.23-rc1/2.6.23-rc2/
HP nx 6310, _old_ shutdown 2.6.23-rc2+above patches:
1. Before:
rutek:/home/maciek#
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
emergency unload. Emergency unload does shorten the lifespan of the
disk but you don't have to worry too much about it. Disks are designed
to withstand certain number of emergency unloads.
You *do* have to worry about
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
Hmmm... If the problem only shows up on nx6325, it might be that ACPI is
pulling unnecessary stunt. Please apply the
Michael Sedkowski wrote:
I did some additional checking today...
On kernels prior to 2.6.22 line, the bug exists and manifests itself
exactly the same way. However, when I removed the -h flag
from /etc/init.d/halt, the drive spins down only once on Power down
message and there is no sign of
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Well, on my box (nx6325) with the appended (experimental) patch applied
on top of 2.6.23-rc1 with the patchset from
http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/hibernation_and_suspend/2.6.23-rc2/patches/ , the
double spin down doesn't occur during hibernation and the system is shut down
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
