Re: [PATCH v5 13/18] watchdog/hardlockup: Have the perf hardlockup use __weak functions more cleanly

[Petr Mladek]

On Fri 2023-05-19 10:18:37, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> The fact that there watchdog_hardlockup_enable(),
> watchdog_hardlockup_disable(), and watchdog_hardlockup_probe() are
> declared __weak means that the configured hardlockup detector can
> define non-weak versions of those functions if it needs to. Instead of
> doing this, the perf hardlockup detector hooked itself into the
> default __weak implementation, which was a bit awkward. Clean this up.
> 
> >From comments, it looks as if the original design was done because the
> __weak function were expected to implemented by the architecture and
> not by the configured hardlockup detector. This got awkward when we
> tried to add the buddy lockup detector which was not arch-specific but
> wanted to hook into those same functions.
> 
> This is not expected to have any functional impact.
>
> @@ -187,27 +187,33 @@ static inline void watchdog_hardlockup_kick(void) { }
>  #endif /* !CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF */
>  
>  /*
> - * These functions can be overridden if an architecture implements its
> - * own hardlockup detector.
> + * These functions can be overridden based on the configured hardlockdup detector.
>   *
>   * watchdog_hardlockup_enable/disable can be implemented to start and stop when
> - * softlockup watchdog start and stop. The arch must select the
> + * softlockup watchdog start and stop. The detector must select the
>   * SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR Kconfig.
>   */
> -void __weak watchdog_hardlockup_enable(unsigned int cpu)
> -{
> -	hardlockup_detector_perf_enable();
> -}
> +void __weak watchdog_hardlockup_enable(unsigned int cpu) { }
>  
> -void __weak watchdog_hardlockup_disable(unsigned int cpu)
> -{
> -	hardlockup_detector_perf_disable();
> -}
> +void __weak watchdog_hardlockup_disable(unsigned int cpu) { }
>  
>  /* Return 0, if a hardlockup watchdog is available. Error code otherwise */
>  int __weak __init watchdog_hardlockup_probe(void)
>  {
> -	return hardlockup_detector_perf_init();
> +	/*
> +	 * If CONFIG_HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG is defined then an architecture
> +	 * is assumed to have the hard watchdog available and we return 0.
> +	 */
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Hardlockup detectors other than those using CONFIG_HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG
> +	 * are required to implement a non-weak version of this probe function
> +	 * to tell whether they are available. If they don't override then
> +	 * we'll return -ENODEV.
> +	 */
> +	return -ENODEV;
>  }

When thinking more about it. It is weird that we need to handle
CONFIG_HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG in this default week function.

It should be handled in watchdog_hardlockup_probe() implemented
in kernel/watchdog_perf.c.

IMHO, the default __weak function could always return -ENODEV;

Would it make sense, please?

Best Regards,
Petr