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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201103160838.GA246433@bjorn-Precision-5520> <874km61732.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <fa26ac8b-ed48-7ea3-c21b-b133532716b8@posteo.de> <87mtzxkus5.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <87wnz0hr9k.fsf@codeaurora.org> <87ft5hehlb.fsf@codeaurora.org>
 <6b60c8f1-ec37-d601-92c2-97a485b73431@posteo.de> <87v9ec9rk3.fsf@codeaurora.org>
 <87imab4slq.fsf@codeaurora.org> <b2129a70db2b36c5015b4143a839f47dfc3153af.camel@seibold.net>
 <CAHUdJJVp5r55NtE+BNz5XGtnaks6mDKQBFodz63DdULBVhD0Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHUdJJXRDKs9NRugUAFgNr51DJ=OcssuiV8ST5CaV1CKiNTFfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <0b58872b4f27dbf5aad2a39f5ec4a066e080d806.camel@seibold.net>
 <875z6b3v22.fsf@codeaurora.org> <CAHUdJJVK1vH2_9YkCQ99n5mak3oGN09422gG0APkWwcy=ZDQ-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <87pn4j2bna.fsf@codeaurora.org> <CAHUdJJXpfkNikreQ_JdpKDkwjEGN0oY8PyYT=aWsw1armz83Kw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHUdJJXpfkNikreQ_JdpKDkwjEGN0oY8PyYT=aWsw1armz83Kw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   wi nk <wink@technolu.st>
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:52:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHUdJJU2XW+9AmV8aCcC=U2yMLUj4gQnU8=NHNte_X5WLgGGcg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pci_alloc_irq_vectors fails ENOSPC for XPS 13 9310
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Govind Singh <govinds@codeaurora.org>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Devin Bayer <dev@doubly.so>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Thomas Krause <thomaskrause@posteo.de>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        ath11k@lists.infradead.org, David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 4:44 PM wi nk <wink@technolu.st> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:00 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >
> > wi nk <wink@technolu.st> writes:
> >
> > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:15 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> writes:
> > >>
> > >> > Am Donnerstag, den 12.11.2020, 02:10 +0100 schrieb wi nk:
> > >> >> I've yet to see any instability after 45 minutes of exercising it, I
> > >> >> do see a couple of messages that came out of the driver:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> [    8.963389] ath11k_pci 0000:55:00.0: Unknown eventid: 0x16005
> > >> >> [   11.342317] ath11k_pci 0000:55:00.0: Unknown eventid: 0x1d00a
> > >> >>
> > >> >> then when it associates:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> [   16.718895] wlp85s0: send auth to ec:08:6b:27:01:ea (try 1/3)
> > >> >> [   16.722636] wlp85s0: authenticated
> > >> >> [   16.724150] wlp85s0: associate with ec:08:6b:27:01:ea (try 1/3)
> > >> >> [   16.726486] wlp85s0: RX AssocResp from ec:08:6b:27:01:ea
> > >> >> (capab=0x411 status=0 aid=8)
> > >> >> [   16.738443] wlp85s0: associated
> > >> >> [   16.764966] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): wlp85s0: link becomes
> > >> >> ready
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The adapter is achieving around 500 mbps on my gigabit connection, my
> > >> >> 2018 mbp sees around 650, so it's doing pretty well so far.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Stefani - when you applied the patch that Kalle shared, which branch
> > >> >> did you apply it to?  I applied it to ath11k-qca6390-bringup and when
> > >> >> I revert 7fef431be9c9 there is a small merge conflict I needed to
> > >> >> resolve.  I wonder if either the starting branch, or your chosen
> > >> >> resolution are related to the instability you see (or I'm just lucky
> > >> >> so far! :)).
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I used the vanilla kernel tree
> > >> > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.10-rc2.tar.gz. On top of this
> > >> > i applied the
> > >> >
> > >> > RFT-ath11k-pci-support-platforms-with-one-MSI-vector.patch
> > >> >
> > >> > and reverted the patch 7fef431be9c9
> > >>
> > >> I did also my testing on v5.10-rc2 and I recommend to use that as the
> > >> baseline when debuggin these ath11k problems. It helps to compare the
> > >> results if everyone have the same baseline.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
> > >>
> > >> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
> > >
> > > Absolutely, I'll rebuild to 5.10 later today and apply the same series
> > > of patches and report back.
> >
> > Great, thanks.
> >
> > > I'll also test out the patch on both versions from Carl to fix
> > > resuming. It stands to reason that we may be seeing another regression
> > > between Stefani (5.10) and myself (5.9 bringup branch) as I don't see
> > > any disconnections or instability once the interface is online.
> >
> > Yeah, there is something strange happening between v5.9 and v5.10 we
> > have not yet figured out. Most likely it has something to do with memory
> > allocations and DMA transfers failing, but no clear understanding yet.
> >
> > But to keep things simple let's only discuss the MSI problem on this
> > thread, and discuss the timeouts in the another thread:
> >
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath11k/2020-November/000641.html
> >
> > I'll include you and other reporters to that thread.
> >
> > --
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
> >
> > https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
>
> Ok, I've tried a clean checkout of 5.10-rc2 with the one MSI patch
> applied and 7fef431be9c9 reverted.  I can't get my machine to  boot
> into anything usable with that configuration.  I'm running ubuntu so
> its starting right into X and sometime between showing the available
> users and me clicking the icon to login the machine freezes.  I can
> see in the system tray that the wifi adapter is being activated and
> appears to have associated with an AP, I just can't do much beyond
> that as the keyboard backlight wakes up, but the caps lock key doesn't
> work.  I see similar behavior with the 5.9 configuration, but after a
> reboot or two I win whatever race is occuring.  With 5.10, I tried
> maybe 10-15 times with 0 success.

Kalle, what would be a useful next move for trying to hunt this?  It
seems I can't really test the single MSI patch on 5.10 since with the
patch (+ the reverted commit) the driver isn't stable enough for my
machine to stay running.  It seems your hunch is that this is related
to the issues in the other thread
(http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath11k/2020-November/000550.html)?
 I see the SOTA for debugging these things would be to use the kdump
tools and let the secondary kernel dump diagnostics for me.  Would
such logs be useful for you/this?

Thanks!