[External] Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] watchdog: move arm64 watchdog_hld into common code

[yunhui cui]

Hi Will,

On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 9:44 PM Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:14:24AM +0800, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> > @@ -306,3 +307,85 @@ void __init hardlockup_config_perf_event(const char *str)
> >       wd_hw_attr.type = PERF_TYPE_RAW;
> >       wd_hw_attr.config = config;
> >  }
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_WATCHDOG_PERF_ADJUST_PERIOD
> > +/*
> > + * Safe maximum CPU frequency in case a particular platform doesn't implement
> > + * cpufreq driver. Although, architecture doesn't put any restrictions on
> > + * maximum frequency but 5 GHz seems to be safe maximum given the available
> > + * CPUs in the market which are clocked much less than 5 GHz. On the other
> > + * hand, we can't make it much higher as it would lead to a large hard-lockup
> > + * detection timeout on parts which are running slower (eg. 1GHz on
> > + * Developerbox) and doesn't possess a cpufreq driver.
> > + */
> > +#define SAFE_MAX_CPU_FREQ    5000000000UL // 5 GHz
> > +__weak u64 hw_nmi_get_sample_period(int watchdog_thresh)
> > +{
> > +     unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > +     unsigned long max_cpu_freq;
> > +
> > +     max_cpu_freq = cpufreq_get_hw_max_freq(cpu) * 1000UL;
> > +     if (!max_cpu_freq)
> > +             max_cpu_freq = SAFE_MAX_CPU_FREQ;
> > +
> > +     return (u64)max_cpu_freq * watchdog_thresh;
> > +}
>
> Why does this function become __weak? Neither arm64 nor riscv override
> it afaict.

Would you say there’s any particular issue here? If some architectures
might need to override the hw_nmi_get_sample_period() function later
on, wouldn’t __weak be a more reasonable choice?

>
> Will

Thanks,
Yunhui