linux-kernel - Re: Regression: QCA6390 fails with "mm/page_alloc: place pages to tail in __free_pages

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:08:21 +0800
From:   Carl Huang <cjhuang@...eaurora.org>
To:     Pavel Procopiuc <pavel.procopiuc@...il.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        ath11k@...ts.infradead.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: Regression: QCA6390 fails with "mm/page_alloc: place pages to
 tail in __free_pages_core()"

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.