[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VuDYiu5nL5ZeZcY2b+YXOzZtSu2E4qBBHz9fWTW8gPhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 15:58:06 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jinchao Wang <wangjinchao600@...il.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
catalin.marinas@....com, maddy@...ux.ibm.com, mpe@...erman.id.au,
npiggin@...il.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
acme@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
jolsa@...nel.org, adrian.hunter@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com,
kees@...nel.org, masahiroy@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com, ojeda@...nel.org,
thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de, xur@...gle.com, ruanjinjie@...wei.com,
gshan@...hat.com, maz@...nel.org, suzuki.poulose@....com,
zhanjie9@...ilicon.com, yangyicong@...ilicon.com, gautam@...ux.ibm.com,
arnd@...db.de, zhao.xichao@...o.com, rppt@...nel.org, lihuafei1@...wei.com,
coxu@...hat.com, jpoimboe@...nel.org, yaozhenguo1@...il.com,
luogengkun@...weicloud.com, max.kellermann@...os.com, tj@...nel.org,
yury.norov@...il.com, thorsten.blum@...ux.dev, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V1] watchdog: Add boot-time selection for hard lockup detector
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 3:45 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 2:43 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> ...
> > The buddy watchdog was pretty much following the conventions that were
> > already in the code: that the hardlockup detector (whether backed by
> > perf or not) was essentially called the "nmi watchdog". There were a
> > number of people that were involved in reviews and I don't believe
> > suggesting creating a whole different mechanism for enabling /
> > disabling the buddy watchdog was never suggested.
>
> I suspect they lacked the context that 1 in the nmi_watchdog is taken
> to mean there's a perf event in use by the kernel with implications on
> how group events behave. This behavior has been user
> visible/advertised for 9 years. I don't doubt that there were good
> intentions by PowerPC's watchdog and in the buddy watchdog patches in
> using the file, that use will lead to spurious warnings and behaviors
> by perf.
>
> My points remain:
> 1) using multiple files regresses perf's performance;
> 2) the file name by its meaning is wrong;
> 3) old perf tools on new kernels won't behave as expected wrt warnings
> and metrics because the meaning of the file has changed.
> Using a separate file for each watchdog resolves this. It seems that
> there wasn't enough critical mass for getting this right to have
> mattered before, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get it right now.
Presumably your next steps then are to find someone to submit a patch
and try to convince others on the list that this is a good idea. The
issue with perf has been known for a while now and I haven't seen any
patches. As I've said, I won't stand in the way if everyone else
agrees, but given that I'm still not convinced I'm not going to author
any patches for this myself.
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists