Re: `do_IRQ: 1.55 No irq handler for vector` on ASRock E350M1

[Tom Lendacky]

On 2/26/2018 10:31 AM, Borislav Petkov 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?

Yes, that's where I remember seeing it.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> Because I have such reports too.
>