Re: [RFC PATCH 12/23] kernel/watchdog: Introduce a struct for NMI watchdog operations

[Ricardo Neri]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:32:50PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:31:17 -0700
> Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 09:52:25PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:26:49 +0200 (CEST)
> > > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:  
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 05:41:41PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:    
> > > > > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:57:32 -0700
> > > > > > Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >     
> > > > > > > Instead of exposing individual functions for the operations of the NMI
> > > > > > > watchdog, define a common interface that can be used across multiple
> > > > > > > implementations.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The struct nmi_watchdog_ops is defined for such operations. These initial
> > > > > > > definitions include the enable, disable, start, stop, and cleanup
> > > > > > > operations.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Only a single NMI watchdog can be used in the system. The operations of
> > > > > > > this NMI watchdog are accessed via the new variable nmi_wd_ops. This
> > > > > > > variable is set to point the operations of the first NMI watchdog that
> > > > > > > initializes successfully. Even though at this moment, the only available
> > > > > > > NMI watchdog is the perf-based hardlockup detector. More implementations
> > > > > > > can be added in the future.    
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Cool, this looks pretty nice at a quick glance. sparc and powerpc at
> > > > > > least have their own NMI watchdogs, it would be good to have those
> > > > > > converted as well.    
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yeah, agreed, this looks like half a patch.    
> > > > 
> > > > Though I'm not seeing the advantage of it. That kind of NMI watchdogs are
> > > > low level architecture details so having yet another 'ops' data structure
> > > > with a gazillion of callbacks, checks and indirections does not provide
> > > > value over the currently available weak stubs.  
> > > 
> > > The other way to go of course is librify the perf watchdog and make an
> > > x86 watchdog that selects between perf and hpet... I also probably
> > > prefer that for code such as this, but I wouldn't strongly object to
> > > ops struct if I'm not writing the code. It's not that bad is it?  
> > 
> > My motivation to add the ops was that the hpet and perf watchdog share
> > significant portions of code.
> 
> Right, a good motivation.
> 
> > I could look into creating the library for
> > common code and relocate the hpet watchdog into arch/x86 for the hpet-
> > specific parts.
> 
> If you can investigate that approach, that would be appreciated. I hope
> I did not misunderstand you there, Thomas.
> 
> Basically you would have perf infrastructure and hpet infrastructure,
> and then the x86 watchdog driver will use one or the other of those. The
> generic watchdog driver will be just a simple shim that uses the perf
> infrastructure. Then hopefully the powerpc driver would require almost
> no change.

Sure, I will try to structure code to minimize the changes to the powerpc
watchdog... without breaking the sparc one.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo