Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: False positive "do_IRQ: #.55 No irq handler for vector" messages on AMD ryzen based laptops | From | Hans de Goede <> | Date | Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:30:16 +0100 |
| |
Hi,
On 19-02-19 22:47, Lendacky, Thomas wrote: > On 2/19/19 3:01 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> Hans, >> >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Hans de Goede wrote: >> >> Cc+: ACPI/AMD folks >> >>> Various people are reporting false positive "do_IRQ: #.55 No irq handler for >>> vector" >>> messages on AMD ryzen based laptops, see e.g.: >>> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551605 >>> >>> Which contains this dmesg snippet: >>> >>> Feb 07 20:14:29 localhost.localdomain kernel: smp: Bringing up secondary CPUs >>> ... >>> Feb 07 20:14:29 localhost.localdomain kernel: x86: Booting SMP configuration: >>> Feb 07 20:14:29 localhost.localdomain kernel: .... node #0, CPUs: #1 >>> Feb 07 20:14:29 localhost.localdomain kernel: do_IRQ: 1.55 No irq handler for >>> vector >>> Feb 07 20:14:29 localhost.localdomain kernel: #2 >>> Feb 07 20:14:29 localhost.localdomain kernel: do_IRQ: 2.55 No irq handler for >>> vector >>> Feb 07 20:14:29 localhost.localdomain kernel: #3 >>> Feb 07 20:14:29 localhost.localdomain kernel: do_IRQ: 3.55 No irq handler for >>> vector >>> Feb 07 20:14:29 localhost.localdomain kernel: smp: Brought up 1 node, 4 CPUs >>> Feb 07 20:14:29 localhost.localdomain kernel: smpboot: Max logical packages: 1 >>> Feb 07 20:14:29 localhost.localdomain kernel: smpboot: Total of 4 processors >>> activated (15968.49 BogoMIPS) >>> >>> It seems that we get an IRQ for each CPU as we bring it online, >>> which feels to me like it is some sorta false-positive. >> >> Sigh, that looks like BIOS value add again. >> >> It's not a false positive. Something _IS_ sending a vector 55 to these CPUs >> for whatever reason. >> > > I remember seeing something like this in the past and it turned out to be > a BIOS issue. BIOS was enabling the APs to interact with the legacy 8259 > interrupt controller when only the BSP should. During POST the APs were > exposed to ExtINT/INTR events as a result of the mis-configuration > (probably due to a UEFI timer-tick using the 8259) and this left a pending > ExtINT/INTR interrupt latched on the APs. > > When the APs were started by the OS, the latched ExtINT/INTR interrupt is > processed shortly after the OS enables interrupts. The AP then queries the > 8259 to identify the vector number (which is the value of the 8259's ICW2 > register + the IRQ level). The master 8259's ICW2 was set to 0x30 and, > since no interrupts are actually pending, the 8259 will respond with IRQ7 > (spurious interrupt) yielding a vector of 0x37 or 55. > > The OS was not expecting vector 55 and printed the message. > > From the Intel Developer's Manual: Vol 3a, Section 10.5.1: > "Only one processor in the system should have an LVT entry configured to > use the ExtINT delivery mode." > > Not saying this is the problem, but very well could be.
That sounds like a likely candidate, esp. also since this only happens once per CPU when we first only the CPU.
Can you provide me with a patch with some printk-s / pr_debugs to test for this, then I can build a kernel with that patch added and we can see if your hypothesis is right.
Regards,
Hans
> > Thanks, > Tom > >>> I temporarily have access to a loaner laptop for a couple of weeks which shows >>> the same errors and I would like to fix this, but I don't really know how to >>> fix this. >> >> Can you please enable CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_DEBUGFS and dig in the files there >> whether vector 55 is used on CPU0 and which device is associated to that. >> >> I bet its a legacy IRQ and as that space starts at 48 (IRQ0) this should be >> IRQ9 which is usually - DRUMROLL - the ACPI interrupt. >> >> The kernel clearly sets that up to be delivered to CPU 0 only, but I've >> seen that before that the BIOS value add thinks that this setup is not >> relevant. >> >> /me goes off and sings LALALA >> >>> Note if you want I can set up root ssh-access to the laptop. >> >> As a least resort. root ssh - SHUDDER - Ooops now I spilled my preferred >> password for that :) >> >> Thanks, >> >> tglx >>
| |