Hi Thomas,
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.
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.
Note if you want I can set up root ssh-access to the laptop.
Regards,
Hans
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 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
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.
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
>
Hi,
On 19-02-19 22:01, 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 CPUsHi,
>> ...
>> 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 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.
ls /sys/kernel/debug/irq/domains gives:
AMD-IR-0 IO-APIC-IR-0 PCI-MSI-3 default
AMD-IR-MSI-0-3 IO-APIC-IR-1 VECTOR
Non of the files under /sys/kernel/debug/irq/domains list 55 under the "vectors"
column of their output. The part with the vectors column is identical for all
of them and looks like this for all of them:
| CPU | avl | man | mac | act | vectors
0 195 1 1 6 33-37,48
1 195 1 1 6 33-38
2 195 1 1 6 33-38
3 195 1 1 6 33-38
4 195 1 1 6 33-38
5 195 1 1 6 33-38
6 195 1 1 6 33-38
7 195 1 1 6 33-38
cat /sys/kernel/debug/irq/irqs/55
Gives:
handler: handle_fasteoi_irq
device: (null)
status: 0x00004100
istate: 0x00000000
ddepth: 1
wdepth: 0
dstate: 0x0503a000
IRQD_LEVEL
IRQD_IRQ_DISABLED
IRQD_IRQ_MASKED
IRQD_SINGLE_TARGET
IRQD_MOVE_PCNTXT
IRQD_CAN_RESERVE
node: -1
affinity: 0-15
effectiv: 0
pending:
domain: IO-APIC-IR-1
hwirq: 0x0
chip: IR-IO-APIC
flags: 0x10
IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE
parent:
domain: AMD-IR-0
hwirq: 0x10000
chip: AMD-IR
flags: 0x0
parent:
domain: VECTOR
hwirq: 0x37
chip: APIC
flags: 0x0
Vector: 0
Target: 0
move_in_progress: 0
is_managed: 0
can_reserve: 1
has_reserved: 1
cleanup_pending: 0
cat /proc/interrupt
Gives:
CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 CPU4 CPU5 CPU6 CPU7
0: 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-IO-APIC 2-edge timer
1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 IR-IO-APIC 1-edge i8042
8: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 IR-IO-APIC 8-edge rtc0
9: 0 6564 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-IO-APIC 9-fasteoi acpi
12: 0 0 0 0 0 511 0 0 IR-IO-APIC 12-edge i8042
25: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCI-MSI 4096-edge AMD-Vi
26: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 18432-edge PCIe PME, aerdrv
27: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 20480-edge PCIe PME, aerdrv
28: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 22528-edge PCIe PME, aerdrv
29: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 24576-edge PCIe PME, aerdrv
30: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 26624-edge PCIe PME, aerdrv
31: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 28672-edge PCIe PME, aerdrv
32: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 133120-edge PCIe PME
33: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 135168-edge PCIe PME
35: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 4194304-edge ahci[0000:08:00.0]
36: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-IO-APIC 15-fasteoi ehci_hcd:usb1
38: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3676160-edge xhci_hcd
39: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3676161-edge xhci_hcd
40: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3676162-edge xhci_hcd
41: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3676163-edge xhci_hcd
42: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3676164-edge xhci_hcd
43: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3676165-edge xhci_hcd
44: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3676166-edge xhci_hcd
45: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3676167-edge xhci_hcd
47: 0 0 0 0 0 623 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3678208-edge xhci_hcd
48: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3678209-edge xhci_hcd
49: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3678210-edge xhci_hcd
50: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3678211-edge xhci_hcd
51: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3678212-edge xhci_hcd
52: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3678213-edge xhci_hcd
53: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3678214-edge xhci_hcd
54: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3678215-edge xhci_hcd
56: 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 524288-edge rtsx_pci
58: 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572864-edge nvme0q0
59: 3838 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572865-edge nvme0q1
60: 0 2036 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572866-edge nvme0q2
61: 0 0 3525 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572867-edge nvme0q3
62: 0 0 0 5013 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572868-edge nvme0q4
63: 0 0 0 0 3025 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572869-edge nvme0q5
64: 0 0 0 0 0 2271 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572870-edge nvme0q6
65: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3948 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572871-edge nvme0q7
66: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2094 IR-PCI-MSI 1572872-edge nvme0q8
67: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572873-edge nvme0q9
68: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572874-edge nvme0q10
69: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572875-edge nvme0q11
70: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572876-edge nvme0q12
71: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572877-edge nvme0q13
72: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572878-edge nvme0q14
73: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572879-edge nvme0q15
74: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1572880-edge nvme0q16
75: 0 0 7598 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3670016-edge amdgpu
77: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 2097152-edge enp4s0f0
79: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3145728-edge enp6s0
81: 0 0 0 527 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3672064-edge snd_hda_intel:card0
82: 0 0 0 0 930 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 3682304-edge snd_hda_intel:card1
84: 0 0 0 0 0 15493 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI 1048576-edge r8822be
NMI: 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Non-maskable interrupts
LOC: 55193 40080 52795 34289 48822 42298 57746 33306 Local timer interrupts
SPU: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spurious interrupts
PMI: 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Performance monitoring interrupts
IWI: 15286 10090 14311 9249 13054 23194 13384 9842 IRQ work interrupts
RTR: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APIC ICR read retries
RES: 26829 14012 14311 8544 12130 6480 13649 6414 Rescheduling interrupts
CAL: 15273 18572 16350 18090 14929 18234 17090 17644 Function call interrupts
TLB: 5771 5218 5098 5248 5571 3619 8354 5405 TLB shootdowns
TRM: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thermal event interrupts
THR: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Threshold APIC interrupts
DFR: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deferred Error APIC interrupts
MCE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine check exceptions
MCP: 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Machine check polls
HYP: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hypervisor callback interrupts
HRE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hyper-V reenlightenment interrupts
HVS: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hyper-V stimer0 interrupts
ERR: 0
MIS: 0
PIN: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Posted-interrupt notification event
NPI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nested posted-interrupt event
PIW: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Posted-interrupt wakeup event
> 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
Regards,
Hans
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
>>
Hi,
On 21-02-19 13:30, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 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.
Ping? I like your theory, can you provide some help with debugging this
further (to prove that your theory is correct ) ?
Regards,
Hans
On 3/3/19 4:57 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 21-02-19 13:30, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Ping? I like your theory, can you provide some help with debugging this
> further (to prove that your theory is correct ) ?
It's been a very long time since I dealt with this and I was only on the
periphery. You might be able to print the LVT entries from the APIC and
see if any of them have an un-masked ExtINT delivery mode. You would need
to do this very early before Linux modifies any values.
Or you can report the issue to the OEM and have them check their BIOS
code to see if they are doing this.
Thanks,
Tom
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
Hi,
On 05-03-19 15:06, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> On 3/3/19 4:57 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 21-02-19 13:30, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Ping? I like your theory, can you provide some help with debugging this
>> further (to prove that your theory is correct ) ?
>
> It's been a very long time since I dealt with this and I was only on the
> periphery. You might be able to print the LVT entries from the APIC and
> see if any of them have an un-masked ExtINT delivery mode. You would need
> to do this very early before Linux modifies any values.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the interrupt / APIC parts of
the kernel to do something like this myself.
> Or you can report the issue to the OEM and have them check their BIOS
> code to see if they are doing this.
I will try to go this route, but I'm not really hopeful that will
lead to a solution.
Regards,
Hans
Hi,
On 05-03-19 17:02, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 05-03-19 15:06, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>> On 3/3/19 4:57 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 21-02-19 13:30, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Ping? I like your theory, can you provide some help with debugging this
>>> further (to prove that your theory is correct ) ?
>>
>> It's been a very long time since I dealt with this and I was only on the
>> periphery. You might be able to print the LVT entries from the APIC and
>> see if any of them have an un-masked ExtINT delivery mode. You would need
>> to do this very early before Linux modifies any values.
>
> I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the interrupt / APIC parts of
> the kernel to do something like this myself.
>
>> Or you can report the issue to the OEM and have them check their BIOS
>> code to see if they are doing this.
>
> I will try to go this route, but I'm not really hopeful that will
> lead to a solution.
A similar issue is also reported here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551605
There are multiple people with different vectors (so likely / possibly
different bugs) commenting on that bug, but I just got confirmation
that the vector 55 issue is also happening on an Acer system with an AMD
A8 processor (I suspect a Ryzen, but that still needs to be confirmed).
So this seems to be a generic issue with (some) AMD laptops and
not specific to one OEM.
Regards,
Hans
On 3/5/19 1:19 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 05-03-19 17:02, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 05-03-19 15:06, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>>> On 3/3/19 4:57 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 21-02-19 13:30, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Ping? I like your theory, can you provide some help with debugging this
>>>> further (to prove that your theory is correct ) ?
>>>
>>> It's been a very long time since I dealt with this and I was only on the
>>> periphery. You might be able to print the LVT entries from the APIC and
>>> see if any of them have an un-masked ExtINT delivery mode. You would need
>>> to do this very early before Linux modifies any values.
>>
>> I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the interrupt / APIC parts of
>> the kernel to do something like this myself.
>>
>>> Or you can report the issue to the OEM and have them check their BIOS
>>> code to see if they are doing this.
>>
>> I will try to go this route, but I'm not really hopeful that will
>> lead to a solution.
>
> A similar issue is also reported here:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551605
>
> There are multiple people with different vectors (so likely / possibly
> different bugs) commenting on that bug, but I just got confirmation
> that the vector 55 issue is also happening on an Acer system with an AMD
> A8 processor (I suspect a Ryzen, but that still needs to be confirmed).
>
> So this seems to be a generic issue with (some) AMD laptops and
> not specific to one OEM.
I also see that comment 17 is for an Intel based machine, which to me
implies that it really is a BIOS issue.
Thanks,
Tom
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 08:40:02PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Finger pointing at the firmware if there are multiple vendors involved
> is really not going to help here. Esp. since most OEMs will just respond
> with "the machine works fine with Windows"
Yes, because windoze simply doesn't report that spurious IRQ, most
likely.
Firmware is fiddling with some crap underneath and it ends up raising
IRQs. tglx told you that too.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Hi,
On 05-03-19 20:31, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> On 3/5/19 1:19 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 05-03-19 17:02, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 05-03-19 15:06, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/19 4:57 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21-02-19 13:30, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ping? I like your theory, can you provide some help with debugging this
>>>>> further (to prove that your theory is correct ) ?
>>>>
>>>> It's been a very long time since I dealt with this and I was only on the
>>>> periphery. You might be able to print the LVT entries from the APIC and
>>>> see if any of them have an un-masked ExtINT delivery mode. You would need
>>>> to do this very early before Linux modifies any values.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the interrupt / APIC parts of
>>> the kernel to do something like this myself.
>>>
>>>> Or you can report the issue to the OEM and have them check their BIOS
>>>> code to see if they are doing this.
>>>
>>> I will try to go this route, but I'm not really hopeful that will
>>> lead to a solution.
>>
>> A similar issue is also reported here:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551605
>>
>> There are multiple people with different vectors (so likely / possibly
>> different bugs) commenting on that bug, but I just got confirmation
>> that the vector 55 issue is also happening on an Acer system with an AMD
>> A8 processor (I suspect a Ryzen, but that still needs to be confirmed).
>>
>> So this seems to be a generic issue with (some) AMD laptops and
>> not specific to one OEM.
>
> I also see that comment 17 is for an Intel based machine, which to me
> implies that it really is a BIOS issue.
That user is seeing "No irq handler for vector" on vectors 33-35 so that
is likely / possibly another bug.
Finger pointing at the firmware if there are multiple vendors involved
is really not going to help here. Esp. since most OEMs will just respond
with "the machine works fine with Windows"
Regards,
Hans
Hi,
On 05-03-19 20:54, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 08:40:02PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Finger pointing at the firmware if there are multiple vendors involved
>> is really not going to help here. Esp. since most OEMs will just respond
>> with "the machine works fine with Windows"
>
> Yes, because windoze simply doesn't report that spurious IRQ, most
> likely.
So maybe we need to lower the priority of the do_IRQ error from pr_emerg
to pr_err then ? That will stop throwing the errors in the users face each
boot on distros which have chosen to set the quiet loglevel to such a level
that pr_err messages are not shown on the console (*).
Regards,
Hans
*) Since there are simply too much false-positive pr_err messages in the kernel,
try e.g. plugging in a usb-stick and then do "dmesg -level=err"
Note the messages will still be in dmesg and in the system logs
Hans,
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 05-03-19 20:54, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 08:40:02PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > Finger pointing at the firmware if there are multiple vendors involved
> > > is really not going to help here. Esp. since most OEMs will just respond
> > > with "the machine works fine with Windows"
> >
> > Yes, because windoze simply doesn't report that spurious IRQ, most
> > likely.
>
> So maybe we need to lower the priority of the do_IRQ error from pr_emerg
> to pr_err then ? That will stop throwing the errors in the users face each
> boot on distros which have chosen to set the quiet loglevel to such a level
> that pr_err messages are not shown on the console (*).
Well, we rather try to understand and fix the issue.
So if Tom's theory holds, then the patch below should cure it.
Thanks,
tglx
8<---------------------
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
@@ -1642,6 +1642,7 @@ static void end_local_APIC_setup(void)
*/
void apic_ap_setup(void)
{
+ clear_local_APIC();
setup_local_APIC();
end_local_APIC_setup();
}
Hi,
On 06-03-19 11:14, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Hans,
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 05-03-19 20:54, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 08:40:02PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Finger pointing at the firmware if there are multiple vendors involved
>>>> is really not going to help here. Esp. since most OEMs will just respond
>>>> with "the machine works fine with Windows"
>>>
>>> Yes, because windoze simply doesn't report that spurious IRQ, most
>>> likely.
>>
>> So maybe we need to lower the priority of the do_IRQ error from pr_emerg
>> to pr_err then ? That will stop throwing the errors in the users face each
>> boot on distros which have chosen to set the quiet loglevel to such a level
>> that pr_err messages are not shown on the console (*).
>
> Well, we rather try to understand and fix the issue.
>
> So if Tom's theory holds, then the patch below should cure it.
Thank you for the patch, unfortunately the messages still happen
with a kernel with the patch applied:
[ 0.741479] smp: Bringing up secondary CPUs ...
[ 0.741654] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
[ 0.741655] .... node #0, CPUs: #1
[ 0.742231] TSC synchronization [CPU#0 -> CPU#1]:
[ 0.742231] Measured 3346474670 cycles TSC warp between CPUs, turning off TSC
clock.
[ 0.742231] tsc: Marking TSC unstable due to check_tsc_sync_source failed
[ 0.321639] do_IRQ: 1.55 No irq handler for vector
[ 0.743371] #2
[ 0.321639] do_IRQ: 2.55 No irq handler for vector
[ 0.743598] #3
[ 0.321639] do_IRQ: 3.55 No irq handler for vector
[ 0.744306] #4
[ 0.321639] do_IRQ: 4.55 No irq handler for vector
[ 0.744531] #5
[ 0.321639] do_IRQ: 5.55 No irq handler for vector
[ 0.745241] #6
[ 0.321639] do_IRQ: 6.55 No irq handler for vector
[ 0.745467] #7
[ 0.321639] do_IRQ: 7.55 No irq handler for vector
[ 0.745627] smp: Brought up 1 node, 8 CPUs
[ 0.745627] smpboot: Max logical packages: 2
[ 0.745627] smpboot: Total of 8 processors activated (35133.37 BogoMIPS)
I also tried suspend/resume. In that case there are no
extra "No irq handler for vector" printed, this seems to
only trigger once per CPU on boot only.
I do get these messages during resume, but I guess these are unrelated:
[ 167.034247] ACPI: Low-level resume complete
[ 167.034247] ACPI: EC: EC started
[ 167.034247] PM: Restoring platform NVS memory
[ 167.034247] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
[ 167.034247] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
[ 167.034247] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x1
[ 167.034247] cache: parent cpu1 should not be sleeping
[ 167.034281] microcode: CPU1: patch_level=0x08101007
[ 167.034542] CPU1 is up
[ 167.034583] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 2 APIC 0x2
[ 167.035347] cache: parent cpu2 should not be sleeping
[ 167.035484] microcode: CPU2: patch_level=0x08101007
[ 167.035690] CPU2 is up
[ 167.035703] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 3 APIC 0x3
[ 167.036447] cache: parent cpu3 should not be sleeping
[ 167.036580] microcode: CPU3: patch_level=0x08101007
[ 167.036819] CPU3 is up
[ 167.036843] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 4 APIC 0x4
[ 167.038227] cache: parent cpu4 should not be sleeping
[ 167.038384] microcode: CPU4: patch_level=0x08101007
etc.
Regards,
Hans
> 8<---------------------
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> @@ -1642,6 +1642,7 @@ static void end_local_APIC_setup(void)
> */
> void apic_ap_setup(void)
> {
> + clear_local_APIC();
> setup_local_APIC();
> end_local_APIC_setup();
> }
>
Replying to https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/19/516 from yes, 2019.
My MSI B450 Tomahawk is exhibiting this bug now that I've updated the firmware to the latest beta BIOS with AGESA 1.1.0.0 patch D.