Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: `do_IRQ: 1.55 No irq handler for vector` on ASRock E350M1
To:     "Morton, Eric" <Eric.Morton@amd.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel+linux-irq@molgen.mpg.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
References: <8bb6b660-ce08-37a7-d1ab-38a690595856@molgen.mpg.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1802231914590.1437@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20180223190950.GJ4981@pd.tnic>
 <61f2fc82-4eee-8678-c37a-dc300dde4edf@molgen.mpg.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1802240941190.1825@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <c84da3a5-107c-2ddc-d108-ebb33df49719@amd.com>
 <20180226163102.GM4377@pd.tnic>
 <0337DBEF-58BD-447A-A828-DE1A7CEF21E4@amd.com>
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Message-ID: <13724e9f-a6f3-ece2-b007-741e45ef3660@amd.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:42:23 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0337DBEF-58BD-447A-A828-DE1A7CEF21E4@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: amd.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2018 16:42:27.1744 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4f4c31c7-e83b-4c86-db4c-08d57d37ec77
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR12MB1141
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 2/26/2018 10:37 AM, Morton, Eric wrote:
> Thomas,
> 
> Yazen dug out PLAT-21393 as sounding like this issue. I haven't had a chance to digest it.

Yes, internally to AMD, that was the bug that tracked the issue I was
referring to.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> 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.
>     
>