Re: [PATCH 3/4] watchdog/hardlockup: improve buddy system detection timeliness

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 1:12 PM Mayank Rungta via B4 Relay
<devnull+mrungta.google.com@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ static unsigned int watchdog_next_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>
>  int __init watchdog_hardlockup_probe(void)
>  {
> +       watchdog_hardlockup_miss_thresh = 3;
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> @@ -86,14 +87,6 @@ void watchdog_buddy_check_hardlockup(int hrtimer_interrupts)
>  {
>         unsigned int next_cpu;
>
> -       /*
> -        * Test for hardlockups every 3 samples. The sample period is
> -        *  watchdog_thresh * 2 / 5, so 3 samples gets us back to slightly over
> -        *  watchdog_thresh (over by 20%).
> -        */
> -       if (hrtimer_interrupts % 3 != 0)
> -               return;

I really like that this solution achieves a tighter detection range
without any downside (no extra wakeups, etc). :-)

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>