Hi Doug，

On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 1:04 AM Doug Anderson [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,

On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 10:57 PM yunhui cui [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Doug,

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 5:34 AM Doug Anderson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 3:10 AM Yunhui Cui [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Move watchdog_hld.c to kernel/, and rename arm_pmu_irq_is_nmi()
to arch_pmu_irq_is_nmi() for cross-arch reusability.

Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <redacted>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile                   | 1 -
 drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c                       | 2 +-
 include/linux/nmi.h                          | 1 +
 include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h                 | 2 --
 kernel/Makefile                              | 2 +-
 {arch/arm64/kernel => kernel}/watchdog_hld.c | 8 ++++++--
 6 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
 rename {arch/arm64/kernel => kernel}/watchdog_hld.c (97%)

I'm not a huge fan of the perf hardlockup detector and IMO we should
maybe just delete it. Thus spreading it to support a new architecture
isn't my favorite thing to do. Can't you use the buddy hardlockup
detector?

Why is there a plan to remove CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF? Could
you explain the specific reasons? Is the community's future plan to
favor CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_BUDDY?

I don't think there are any concrete plans, but there was some discussion here:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAD=FV=WWUiCi6bZCs_gseFpDDWNkuJMoL6XCftEo6W7q6jRCkg@mail.gmail.com/ (local)

-Doug

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?

Thanks,
Yunhui