[External] Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] watchdog: move arm64 watchdog_hld into common code

[yunhui cui]

Hi Doug,

On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 4:00 AM Doug Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 1:48 AM Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui at bytedance.com> wrote:
> >
> > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/cpu_pm.h>
> >  #include <linux/export.h>
> >  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > +#include <linux/nmi.h>
> >  #include <linux/perf/arm_pmu.h>
> >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> >  #include <linux/sched/clock.h>
> > @@ -696,10 +697,12 @@ static int armpmu_get_cpu_irq(struct arm_pmu *pmu, int cpu)
> >         return per_cpu(hw_events->irq, cpu);
> >  }
> >
> > -bool arm_pmu_irq_is_nmi(void)
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF
> > +bool arch_perf_nmi_is_available(void)
> >  {
> >         return has_nmi;
> >  }
> > +#endif
>
> Should the previous comment move here, AKA:
>
> /*
>  * hardlockup_detector_perf_init() will success even if Pseudo-NMI turns off,

Okay, we also need to change it to “watchdog_hardlockup_probe()”

>  * however, the pmu interrupts will act like a normal interrupt instead of
>  * NMI and the hardlockup detector would be broken.
> */
>
>
> > +static int __init init_watchdog_freq_notifier(void)
> > +{
> > +       return cpufreq_register_notifier(&watchdog_freq_notifier,
> > +                                        CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER);
>
> I think you need to do something to prevent this from happening on any
> platforms that override hw_nmi_get_sample_period(), right? These
> cpufreq notifiers will be useless in that case...

I understand this is not a problem. watchdog_perf uses
PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES, which means it is inherently limited by the
CPU's main frequency. After we make such a change, a larger value may
be used as the period, so the NMI period will become longer, but this
value will not change after the system starts.

>
>
> -Doug
>

Thanks,
Yunhui