linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: refactor watchdog

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAP-5=fWkcxvZ0z9FJztbN4EhU+BNEJTNxe2a6_+11EcYhjZQaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2025 16:14:39 -0700
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>, paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com, 
	aou@...s.berkeley.edu, alex@...ti.fr, atish.patra@...ux.dev, 
	anup@...infault.org, will@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, 
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, 
	catalin.marinas@....com, masahiroy@...nel.org, suzuki.poulose@....com, 
	maz@...nel.org, zhanjie9@...ilicon.com, yangyicong@...ilicon.com, 
	mingo@...nel.org, lihuafei1@...wei.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
	jpoimboe@...nel.org, rppt@...nel.org, kees@...nel.org, 
	thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: refactor watchdog_hld functionality

On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 4:57 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 4:56 AM yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com> wrote:
> > I’ve read your linked content, which details the pros and cons of perf
> > watchdog and buddy watchdog.
> > I think everyone will agree on choosing one as the default.
> > It seems there’s no kernel/watchdog entry in MAINTAINERS—what’s next
> > for these two approaches?
>
> I guess to start, someone (you?) should send some patches to the list.
> Maybe one patch to make buddy the default and one to change the
> description of the "perf" lockup detector say that its usage is
> discouraged, that it might be removed, that people should use the
> "buddy" detector instead, and that if there's a reason someone needs
> the "perf" detector instead of the buddy one then they should make
> some loud noises.
>
> You'd want to CC folks who were involved in recent watchdog changes
> and make sure to CC Andrew (akpm). If folks react positive and Andrew
> agrees then he'll likely land the the patches and we'll have made
> forward progress. :-)

+1

There are also things like /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog being used to
enable/disable the hard lookup detector. If we could move that to a
unique file so that perf is less confused in places like:
https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/util/util.c#n70
ie. perf shouldn't warn about the NMI watchdog being enabled and
taking a perf event when it doesn't.

Thanks,
Ian