From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ej1-x62a.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::62a]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kdUHQ-00026K-EA for ath11k@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:18:01 +0000 Received: by mail-ej1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id w13so12041604eju.13 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:17:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Regression: QCA6390 fails with "mm/page_alloc: place pages to tail in __free_pages_core()" References: <8ACA82DB-D2FE-4599-8A01-D42218FDE1E5@redhat.com> <87eekz4s04.fsf@codeaurora.org> <9d307c40-5ea1-8938-819d-f1742cb99945@gmail.com> From: Pavel Procopiuc Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:17:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US 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: David Hildenbrand , Kalle Valo Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ath11k@lists.infradead.org, Vlastimil Babka 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. -- ath11k mailing list ath11k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath11k