Messages in this thread | | | From | "Morton, Eric" <> | Subject | Re: `do_IRQ: 1.55 No irq handler for vector` on ASRock E350M1 | Date | Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:37:18 +0000 |
| |
Thomas,
Yazen dug out PLAT-21393 as sounding like this issue. I haven't had a chance to digest it.
Eric
On 2/26/18, 10:31 AM, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:14:10AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote: > On 2/24/2018 2:59 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, Paul Menzel wrote: > >> Am 23.02.2018 um 20:09 schrieb Borislav Petkov: > >>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 07:18:34PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >>>> Borislav is seeing similar issues on larger AMD machines. The interrupt > >>>> seems to come from BIOS/microcode during bringup of secondary CPUs and we > >>>> have no idea why. > >>> > >>> Paul, can you boot 4.14 and grep your dmesg for something like: > >>> > >>> [ 0.000000] spurious 8259A interrupt: IRQ7. > > >>> ? > >> > >> No, I do not see that. Please find the logs attached. > > > > From your 4.14 log: > > > > Feb 19 09:48:06.843173 kodi kernel: CPU 0 irqstacks, hard=e9b0a000 soft=e9b0c000 > > Feb 19 09:48:06.843216 kodi kernel: spurious 8259A interrupt: IRQ7. > > I think I remember seeing something like this previously and it turned out > to be a BIOS bug. All the AP's were enabled to work with the legacy 8259 > interrupt controller. In an SMP system, only one processor in the system > should be configured to handle legacy 8259 interrupts (ExtINT delivery > mode - see Intel's SDM, Volume 3, section 10.5.1, Delivery Mode). Once > the BIOS was fixed, the spurious interrupt message went away. > > I believe at some point during UEFI, the APs were exposed to an ExtINT > interrupt. Since they were configured to handle ExtINT delivery mode and > interrupts were not yet enabled, the interrupt was left pending. When the > APs were started by the OS and interrupts were enabled, the interrupt > triggered. Since the original pending interrupt was handled by the BSP, > there was no longer an interrupt actually pending, so the 8259 responds > with IRQ 7 when queried by the OS. This occurred for each AP. Interesting - is this something that can happen on Zen too? Because I have such reports too. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
| |