Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: Regression: QCA6390 fails with "mm/page_alloc: place pages to
 tail in __free_pages_core()"
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, ath11k@lists.infradead.org
References: <d6fb1e30-0d19-9af3-337b-69ff11c2fc6c@suse.cz>
 <8ACA82DB-D2FE-4599-8A01-D42218FDE1E5@redhat.com>
 <87eekz4s04.fsf@codeaurora.org>
 <9d307c40-5ea1-8938-819d-f1742cb99945@gmail.com>
 <cd8d1b1d-a646-b9b1-ed2a-4aa7070efe00@redhat.com>
From:   Pavel Procopiuc <pavel.procopiuc@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dd24598f-7635-c2e2-9c6d-f320770e3b9e@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:17:55 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cd8d1b1d-a646-b9b1-ed2a-4aa7070efe00@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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.