[OpenWrt-Devel] ath10k memory leak on 19.07 branch and mikrotik RB952Ui-5ac2nD?

Ben Greear greearb at candelatech.com
Fri Dec 6 13:02:13 EST 2019

On 12/6/19 9:44 AM, Joe Ayers wrote:
>>> Possibly the same symptoms don't exist on 128MB RAM devices.
>> Like there is some if condition, which is doing some nasty things on 64M
>> devices? I admit, that I don't have ath10k-ct source code under my pillow, but
>> it doesn't make much sense to me.
>>> Comparable results between above and my 64MB device.   However, if the
>>> sleep time is extended the consumption is more
>> Ok, I'll let it run overnight with 120s sleep in between.
>>> I suspect this is not the intended behavior.
>> No its not and it's even strange, that I'm not seeing it here if it should
>> happen in the "default setup". Maybe its because:
>> 1. You're using custom image (I'm using official prebuilt images)
>> 2. You're not providing all the steps needed to reproduce the issue
>> 3. I've way different hardware
>> Every detail could make huge difference.
>> -- ynezz
> On the device I am testing, it is both (2GHz) ath9k and (5GHz) ath10k.
>    These look to be related patches to this issue:
> 960-0010-ath10k-limit-htt-rx-ring-size.patch
> 960-0011-ath10k-limit-pci-buffer-size.patch
> In the v19.07.0-rc2 build for the rb-nor-flash-16M-ac ar71xx image,
> these patches are applied to backports-4.19.85-1, but don't seem to be
> applied to ath10k-ct-2019-09-09-5e8cd86f.    Should ath10k-ct have
> these and other patches?    The device's installed packages do include
> ath10k-ct (from downloads.openwrt.org installed image).

I think that if you need the patches for upstream ath10k, then you should also apply
the patches to ath10k-ct.

Platforms with more memory probably do not need or benefit from those patches.


Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list