Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: common_interrupt: No irq handler for vector | From | Shuah Khan <> | Date | Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:57:47 -0700 |
| |
On 12/14/20 1:41 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14 2020 at 09:11, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 12/12/20 12:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 11 2020 at 13:41, Shuah Khan wrote: >>> >>>> I am debugging __common_interrupt: 1.55 No irq handler for vector >>>> messages and noticed comments and code don't agree: >>> >>> I bet that's on an AMD system with broken AGESA BIOS.... Good luck >>> debugging it :) BIOS updates are on the way so I'm told. >>> >> Interesting. The behavior I am seeing doesn't seem to be consistent >> with BIOS problem. I don't see these messages on 5.10-rc7. I started >> seeing them on stable releases. It started right around 5.9.9 and >> not present on 5.9.7. > > What kind of machine?
Here is the processor and BIOS info: AMD Ryzen 7 4700G with Radeon Graphics LENOVO ThinkCentre Embedded Controller -[O4ZCT12A-1.12]- LENOVO ThinkCentre BIOS Boot Block Revision 1.1C
> >> I am bisecting to isolate. Same issue on all stables 5.4, 4.19 and >> so on. If it is BIOS problem I would expect to see it on 5.10-rc7 >> and wouldn't have expected to start seeing it 5.9.9. > > Can you provide some more details, e.g. dmesg please? >
__common_interrupt: 1.55 No irq handler for vector __common_interrupt: 2.55 No irq handler for vector __common_interrupt: 3.55 No irq handler for vector __common_interrupt: 4.55 No irq handler for vector __common_interrupt: 5.55 No irq handler for vector __common_interrupt: 6.55 No irq handler for vector __common_interrupt: 7.55 No irq handler for vector __common_interrupt: 8.55 No irq handler for vector __common_interrupt: 9.55 No irq handler for vector __common_interrupt: 10.55 No irq handler for vector
>>> No. It's perfectly correct in the MSI code. See further down. >>> >>> if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(this_cpu_read(vector_irq[cfg->vector]))) >>> this_cpu_write(vector_irq[cfg->vector], VECTOR_RETRIGGERED); >>> >> >> I am asking about inconsistent comments and the actual message as the >> comment implies if vector is VECTOR_UNUSED state, this message won't >> be triggered in common_interrupt. Based on that my read is the comment >> might be wrong if the code is correct as you are saying. > > The comment says: > > >> * anyway. If the vector is unused, then it is marked so it won't > >> * trigger the 'No irq handler for vector' warning in > >> * common_interrupt(). > > If the vector is unused, then it is _marked_ so ....
See the messages above.
> > It perhaps should explicitely say 'is marked as VECTOR_RETRIGGERED' to make > it clear. >
Possibly. I am running bisect starting at v5.9.7 (good) and compare with v5.9.13 and see why this problems started showing up.
thanks, -- Shuah
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |