Re: Kernel 2.6.23.9 / P35 Chipset + WD 750GB Drives (reset port)

2007-12-10 Thread Tejun Heo
Bill Davidsen wrote: Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Dec 1 2007 06:26, Justin Piszcz wrote: I ran the following: dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdd dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sde (as it is always a very good idea to do this with any new disk) Why would you care about what's

Re: Kernel 2.6.23.9 / P35 Chipset + WD 750GB Drives (reset port)

2007-12-10 Thread Tejun Heo
Justin Piszcz wrote: The badblocks did not do anything; however, when I built a software raid 5 and the performed a dd: /usr/bin/time dd if=/dev/zero of=fill_disk bs=1M [42332.936615] ata5.00: exception Emask 0x2 SAct 0x7000 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 frozen [42332.936706] ata5.00: spurious

Re: Possible data corruption sata_sil24?

2007-07-19 Thread Tejun Heo
David Shaw wrote: I'm not sure whether this is problem of sata_sil24 or dm layer. Cc'ing linux-raid for help. How much memory do you have? One big difference between ata_piix and sata_sil24 is that sil24 can handle 64bit DMA. Maybe dma mapping or something interacts weirdly with dm there?

Re: Possible data corruption sata_sil24?

2007-07-18 Thread Tejun Heo
David Shaw wrote: It fails whether I use a raw /dev/sdd or partition it into one large /dev/sdd1, or partition into multiple partitions. sata_sil24 seems to work by itself, as does dm, but as soon as I mix sata_sil24+dm, I get corruption. H Can you reproduce the corruption by

[PATCH] block: cosmetic changes

2007-07-18 Thread Tejun Heo
Cosmetic changes. This is taken from Jens' zero-length barrier patch. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- block/ll_rw_blk.c |5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Index: work/block/ll_rw_blk.c

[PATCH] block: factor out bio_check_eod()

2007-07-18 Thread Tejun Heo
End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod(). This is taken from Jens' zero-length barrier patch. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- block/ll_rw_blk.c | 63

Re: [PATCH] block: factor out bio_check_eod()

2007-07-18 Thread Tejun Heo
Jens Axboe wrote: On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote: End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod(). Tejun, yeah I should seperate the cleanups and put them in the upstream branch. Will do so and add your signed

Re: [PATCH] block: factor out bio_check_eod()

2007-07-18 Thread Tejun Heo
Jens Axboe wrote: On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote: Jens Axboe wrote: On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote: End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod(). Tejun, yeah I should seperate the cleanups and put them

Re: [PATCH] block: factor out bio_check_eod()

2007-07-18 Thread Tejun Heo
Jens Axboe wrote: On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote: Jens Axboe wrote: On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote: Jens Axboe wrote: On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote: End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod

Re: [PATCH] block: factor out bio_check_eod()

2007-07-18 Thread Tejun Heo
Jens Axboe wrote: somewhat annoying, I'll see if I can prefix it with git-daemon in the future. OK, now skip the /data/git/ stuff and just use git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git Alright, it works like a charm now. Thanks. -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

2007-07-10 Thread Tejun Heo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:39:41 EDT, Ric Wheeler said: All of the high end arrays have non-volatile cache (read, on power loss, it is a promise that it will get all of your data out to permanent storage). You don't need to ask this kind of array to drain the

Re: Linux Software RAID is really RAID?

2007-07-03 Thread Tejun Heo
Mark Lord wrote: I believe he said it was ICH5 (different post/thread). My observation on ICH5 is that if one unplugs a drive, then the chipset/cpu locks up hard when toggling SRST in the EH code. Specifically, it locks up at the instruction which restores SRST back to the non-asserted

Re: [linux-lvm] 2.6.22-rc5 XFS fails after hibernate/resume

2007-07-02 Thread Tejun Heo
David Greaves wrote: Tejun Heo wrote: It's really weird tho. The PHY RDY status changed events are coming from the device which is NOT used while resuming There is an obvious problem there though Tejun (the errors even when sda isn't involved in the OS boot) - can I start another thread

Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

2007-06-02 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, Jens Axboe wrote: Would that be very different from issuing barrier and not waiting for its completion? For ATA and SCSI, we'll have to flush write back cache anyway, so I don't see how we can get performance advantage by implementing separate WRITE_ORDERED. I think zero-length

Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

2007-06-01 Thread Tejun Heo
[ cc'ing Ric Wheeler for storage array thingie. Hi, whole thread is at http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.device-mapper.devel/3344 ] Hello, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but when you consider the self-contained disk arrays it's an entirely different story. you can easily have a few gig of

Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

2007-05-31 Thread Tejun Heo
Jens Axboe wrote: On Thu, May 31 2007, David Chinner wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 08:26:45AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: On Thu, May 31 2007, David Chinner wrote: IOWs, there are two parts to the problem: 1 - guaranteeing I/O ordering 2 - guaranteeing blocks are on persistent storage.

Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

2007-05-31 Thread Tejun Heo
Stefan Bader wrote: 2007/5/30, Phillip Susi [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Stefan Bader wrote: Since drive a supports barrier request we don't get -EOPNOTSUPP but the request with block y might get written before block x since the disk are independent. I guess the chances of this are quite low since

Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

2007-05-26 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, Neil Brown. Please cc me on blkdev barriers and, if you haven't yet, reading Documentation/block/barrier.txt can be helpful too. Neil Brown wrote: [--snip--] 1/ SAFE. With a SAFE device, there is no write-behind cache, or if there is it is non-volatile. Once a write

Re: Kernel 2.6.20.4: Software RAID 5: ata13.00: (irq_stat 0x00020002, failed to transmit command FIS)

2007-04-09 Thread Tejun Heo
Justin Piszcz wrote: On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Justin Piszcz wrote: Had a quick question, this is the first time I have seen this happen, and it was not even under during heavy I/O, hardly anything was going on with the box at the time. .. snip .. # /usr/bin/time badblocks -b 512 -s -v

Re: 2.6.20.3 AMD64 oops in CFQ code

2007-04-04 Thread Tejun Heo
Lee Revell wrote: On 4/4/07, Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I won't say that's voodoo, but if I ever did it I'd wipe down my keyboard with holy water afterward. ;-) Well, I did save the message in my tricks file, but it sounds like a last ditch effort after something get very wrong.

Re: 2.6.20.3 AMD64 oops in CFQ code

2007-04-03 Thread Tejun Heo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyway, what's annoying is that I can't figure out how to bring the drive back on line without resetting the box. It's in a hot-swap enclosure, but power cycling the drive doesn't seem to help. I thought libata hotplug was working? (SiI3132

Re: 2.6.20.3 AMD64 oops in CFQ code

2007-04-02 Thread Tejun Heo
[resending. my mail service was down for more than a week and this message didn't get delivered.] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyway, what's annoying is that I can't figure out how to bring the drive back on line without resetting the box. It's in a hot-swap enclosure, but power cycling the

Re: Problem booting linux 2.6.19-rc5, 2.6.19-rc5-git6, 2.6.19-rc5-mm2 with md raid 1 over lvm root

2006-11-15 Thread Tejun Heo
Nicolas Mailhot wrote: The failing kernels (I tried -rc5, -rc5-git6, -rc5-mm2 only print : % device-mapper: ioctl: 4.7.0-ioctl (2006-06-24) initialised: [EMAIL PROTECTED] md: Autodetecting RAID arrays. md: autorun ... md: ... autorun DONE. %- (I didn't bother copying the rest of the

Re: libata hotplug and md raid?

2006-09-13 Thread Tejun Heo
Ric Wheeler wrote: (Adding Tejun Greg KH to this thread) Adding linux-ide to this thread. Leon Woestenberg wrote: [--snip--] In short, I use ext3 over /dev/md0 over 4 SATA drives /dev/sd[a-d] each driven by libata ahci. I unplug then replug the drive that is rebuilding in RAID-5. When I

Re: Test feedback 2.6.17.4+libata-tj-stable (EH, hotplug)

2006-07-10 Thread Tejun Heo
Christian Pernegger wrote: The fact that the disk had changed minor numbers after it was plugged back in bugs me a bit. (was sdc before, sde after). Additionally udev removed the sdc device file, so I had to manually recreate it to be able to remove the 'faulty' disk from its md array. That's