From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from m42-4.mailgun.net ([69.72.42.4]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kdXVD-00034e-9a for ath11k@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:44:29 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:44:11 +0800 From: Carl Huang Subject: Re: Regression: QCA6390 fails with "mm/page_alloc: place pages to tail in __free_pages_core()" In-Reply-To: References: <8ACA82DB-D2FE-4599-8A01-D42218FDE1E5@redhat.com> <87eekz4s04.fsf@codeaurora.org> <9d307c40-5ea1-8938-819d-f1742cb99945@gmail.com> Message-ID: <056b74d48fb735c69a6268b18184d7e8@codeaurora.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "ath11k" Errors-To: ath11k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Pavel Procopiuc Cc: David Hildenbrand , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Kalle Valo , akpm@linux-foundation.org, ath11k@lists.infradead.org, Vlastimil Babka On 2020-11-13 19:08, Carl Huang wrote: > On 2020-11-13 16:17, Pavel Procopiuc wrote: >> Op 12.11.2020 om 11:48 schreef David Hildenbrand: >>> Trying to understand the code, it looks like there are always two >>> rounds of reqests. The first one always fails ("requesting one big >>> chunk of DMA memory"), the second one (providing multiple chunks of >>> DMA memory) is supposed to work - and we do allocate memory. >>> >>> >>> In the *working* cases we have >>> >>> Respond mem req failed, result: 1, err: 0 >>> qmi failed to respond fw mem req:-22 >>> ... >>> chip_id 0x0 chip_family 0xb board_id 0xff soc_id 0xffffffff >>> >>> We don't fail in qmi_txn_wait() - second request w >>> >>> >>> In the *non-working* cases we have >>> >>> Respond mem req failed, result: 1, err: 0 >>> qmi failed to respond fw mem req:-22 >>> ... >>> qmi failed memory request, err = -110 >>> qmi failed to respond fw mem req:-110 >>> >>> We fail in qmi_txn_wait(). We run into a timeout (ETIMEDOUT). >>> >>> Can we bump up the timeout limit and see if things change? Maybe FW >>> needs more time with other addresses. >> >> I tried increasing ATH11K_QMI_WLANFW_TIMEOUT_MS 20 times to 100000 >> (i.e. 100 seconds) and it didn't have any positive effect, the second >> error (-110) just came 100 seconds later and not 5. >> > Checked some logs. Looks when the error happens, the physical address > are > very small. Its' between 20M - 30M. > > So could you have a try to reserve the memory starting from 20M? > Add "memmap=10M\$20M" to your grub.cfg or edit in kernel parameters. so > ath11k > can't allocate from these address. > > Or you can try to reserve even larger memory starting from 20M. > To guarantee ath11k doesn't get physical address below 32M, reserve some more, for example "memmap=12M\$20M". -- ath11k mailing list ath11k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath11k