Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: common_interrupt: No irq handler for vector | Date | Mon, 14 Dec 2020 21:41:14 +0100 |
| |
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?
> 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?
>> 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 ....
It perhaps should explicitely say 'is marked as VECTOR_RETRIGGERED' to make it clear.
Thanks,
tglx
| |