New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[SATA ALPM] ssd hard drive error due to file system remount in read only #84
Comments
Hi, some devices don't work reliably with ALPM. Try
or
|
Can confirm this issue on an Acer Aspire V5-573G. Linux Mint 17 Qiana 64 with cinnamon desktop and Crucial MX100 512GB. On battery i get the I/O error. Changing "SATA_LINKPWR_ON_BAT" solved this problem for me. "medium_power" was good enough. Thanks |
@pvanhauw: did my suggested workaround help? |
Had the same issue with ThinkPad R400 and MX100 512GB, SATA_LINKPWR_ON_BAT=max_performance solved the problem |
@linrunner I can tentatively confirm that your workaround helps. I had the same issues (Asus UX32LN + MX100 512GB + Linux Mint 17) and have been trying to reproduce the error for the past 3 days. So far no crashes. For me the crashes were seemingly random and somewhat far apart, I will report back in another couple of days. |
@Sondree: which of the two suggested values? |
@linrunner SATA_LINKPWR_ON_BAT=medium_power |
FYI for others running across this issue: An upstream report can be found at: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72191 Please note Comment #23; specifically, the "medium_power" workaround for laptop models such as the Lenovo T440S appears to be SSD model sensitive/specific. So be sure to carefully track your journal/logs if using an ALPM setting besides "max-performance". |
Hi guys, could you post some more dmesg snippets so i can design a regexp for this? I'm considering to add a warning to tlp-stat output. |
Just searched my journal and no longer have any of the past errors available for posting (and rather not force the issue by inducing them). However, they were similar/identical to those under the initial post here: |
SATA_LINKPWR_ON_AC/BAT != max_performance (Issue #84).
I have implemented a check for the above errors in tlp-stat – sample output:
|
Yep, I confirm SATA_LINKPWR_ON_BAT=max_performance worked. I have not done extensive testing with the medium option yet. Pierre 2014-09-03 19:14 GMT+02:00 linrunner notifications@github.com:
|
@linrunner @pvanhauw I have been using medium_power on my setup for the past 2 weeks. No errors related to this so far, seems all good :) |
Check released with 0.6. |
I leave this open. More reports are welcome. |
Thinkpad L420, Fedora 22, same problem with a Crucial MX100, set in on max_power and it works. |
Thinkpad Yoga, Fedora 22, same problem with a Crucial MX100, set in on max_power and it works. I also note a number of comments on the Crucial support forums mentioning system stability or slowdowns under Windows until SATA link power management is disabled. I plan on commenting on this kernel bug: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 |
…power It seems common with the same SSD model (Crucial MX100 512Go) since it has been reported on linrunner/TLP#84, thanks linrunner for the fix.
On Thinkpad T450 with MX100 crucial 512 SSD, with SATA_LINKPWR_ON_BAT=min_power, if I put the laptop on sleep first before unplugging power source, it will work normally after that. |
I'm running Debian Jessie on a Thinkpad T440s with an ordinary HDD (i.e. no SSD). When switching to
When using |
I just found out you have to activate warnings ( |
Hi Urs, nevertheless thanks for your report. Since 0.8 [1] [1] https://github.com/linrunner/TLP/blob/master/tlp-stat.in#L1103 |
@linrunner I've just retested it: both |
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
All kernels should be patched by now. |
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> (cherry picked from commit 2cee7444b99b318d24716a2acadd08538dad0b8b)
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9c7be59fc519af9081c46c48f06f2b8fadf55ad8 upstream. Various people have reported the Crucial MX100 512GB model not working with LPM set to min_power. I've now received a report that it also does not work with the new med_power_with_dipm level. It does work with medium_power, but that has no measurable power-savings and given the amount of people being bitten by the other levels not working, this commit just disables LPM altogether. Note all reporters of this have either the 512GB model (max capacity), or are not specifying their SSD's size. So for now this quirk assumes this is a problem with the 512GB model only. Buglink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89261 Buglink: linrunner/TLP#84 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
I use linux mint 17 qiana 64bits with cinnamon. I installed a new ssd: the MX100 crucial 512 on a Samsung Ativ book 8 (Np870)
After sometime, but this also ALWAYS happens if the laptop stays idle and the screen is disactivated, the file system is remounted in read only because of an error.
You can find all the information here: http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=174315
The most important part is the dmesg:
1982.874590] ata5.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x40000 action 0x6 frozen
[ 1982.874595] ata5: SError: { CommWake }
[ 1982.874598] ata5.00: failed command: FLUSH CACHE EXT
[ 1982.874602] ata5.00: cmd ea/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 tag 0
[ 1982.874602] res 40/00:00:00:4f:c2/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x4 (timeout)
[ 1982.874604] ata5.00: status: { DRDY }
[ 1982.874607] ata5: hard resetting link
[ 1988.238907] ata5: link is slow to respond, please be patient (ready=0)
[ 1992.890664] ata5: COMRESET failed (errno=-16)
[ 1992.890670] ata5: hard resetting link
[ 1998.254987] ata5: link is slow to respond, please be patient (ready=0)
[ 2002.906743] ata5: COMRESET failed (errno=-16)
[ 2002.906750] ata5: hard resetting link
[ 2008.271052] ata5: link is slow to respond, please be patient (ready=0)
[ 2037.975036] ata5: COMRESET failed (errno=-16)
[ 2037.975042] ata5: limiting SATA link speed to 3.0 Gbps
[ 2037.975044] ata5: hard resetting link
[ 2043.003094] ata5: COMRESET failed (errno=-16)
[ 2043.003101] ata5: reset failed, giving up
[ 2043.003103] ata5.00: disabled
[ 2043.003105] ata5.00: device reported invalid CHS sector 0
[ 2043.003114] ata5: EH complete
[ 2043.003151] sd 4:0:0:0: [sda] Unhandled error code
[ 2043.003153] sd 4:0:0:0: [sda]
[ 2043.003154] sd 4:0:0:0: [sda] Unhandled error code
[ 2043.003156] Result: hostbyte=DID_BAD_TARGET driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
[ 2043.003158] sd 4:0:0:0: [sda] CDB:
[ 2043.003163] sd 4:0:0:0: [sda]
[ 2043.003163] Result: hostbyte=DID_BAD_TARGET driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
[ 2043.003165] sd 4:0:0:0: [sda] CDB:
[ 2043.003159] Write(10): 2a 00
[ 2043.003166] Write(10): 2a 00 0e a9 70 c8 00 00 08 00
[ 2043.003176] end_request: I/O error, dev sda, sector 245985480
[ 2043.003179] EXT4-fs warning (device sda8): ext4_end_bio:317: I/O error writing to inode 916782 (offset 0 size 4096 starting block 30748186)
[ 2043.003183] Buffer I/O error on device sda8, logical block 3761689
[ 2043.003180] 0f 22 6f e0 00 00 08 00
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: