mbox series

[0/7] watchdog/hardlockup: Cleanup configuration of hardlockup detectors

Message ID 20230607152432.5435-1-pmladek@suse.com
Headers show
Series watchdog/hardlockup: Cleanup configuration of hardlockup detectors | expand

Message

Petr Mladek June 7, 2023, 3:24 p.m. UTC 
Hi,

this patchset is supposed to replace the last patch in the patchset cleaning
up after introducing the buddy detector, see
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230526184139.10.I821fe7609e57608913fe05abd8f35b343e7a9aae@changeid

There are four possible variants of hardlockup detectors:

  + buddy: available when SMP is set.

  + perf: available when HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF is set.

  + arch-specific: available when HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH is set.

  + sparc64 special variant: available when HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG is set
	and HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH is not set.

Only one hardlockup detector can be compiled in. The selection is done
using quite complex dependencies between several CONFIG variables.
The following patches will try to make it more straightforward.

Before, the decision was done using the following variables:

	+ HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF
	+ HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_BUDDY
	+ HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH
	+ HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG
 
	+ HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
	+ HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PREFER_BUDDY

	+ HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH
	+ HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH

	+ HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF
	+ HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_BUDDY

   and the particular watchdog was used when the following variables were set:

	+ perf:		 HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF
	+ buddy:	 HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_BUDDY
	+ arch-specific: HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH
	+ sparc64:	 HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG && !HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH


After, the decision is done using the following variables:

	+ HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF
	+ HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_BUDDY
	+ HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH
	+ HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_SPARC64
 
	+ HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
	+ HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PREFER_BUDDY

	+ HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF
	+ HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_BUDDY
	+ HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH
	+ HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_SPARC64

   and the particular watchdog is used when one of these variables is set:

	+ perf:		 HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF
	+ buddy:	 HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_BUDDY
	+ arch-specific: HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH
	+ sparc64:	 HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_SPARC64


Plus, many checks are more straightforward and even self-explanatory.

I build and run tested it on x86_64. I only checked the generated
.config after using sparc_defconfig, sparc64_defconfig, ppc64_defconfig,
and ppc40x_defconfig.

Best Regards,
Petr

Petr Mladek (7):
  watchdog/hardlockup: Sort hardlockup detector related config values a
    logical way
  watchdog/hardlockup: Make the config checks more straightforward
  watchdog/hardlockup: Declare arch_touch_nmi_watchdog() only in
    linux/nmi.h
  watchdog/hardlockup: Enable HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG only on sparc64
  watchdog/sparc64: Rename HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG to
    HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_WATCHDOG_SPARC64
  watchdog/sparc64: Define HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_SPARC64
  watchdog/hardlockup: Define HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH

 arch/Kconfig                   |  17 ++---
 arch/powerpc/Kconfig           |   5 +-
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/nmi.h |   2 -
 arch/sparc/Kconfig             |   2 +-
 arch/sparc/Kconfig.debug       |  20 ++++++
 arch/sparc/include/asm/nmi.h   |   1 -
 include/linux/nmi.h            |  14 ++--
 kernel/watchdog.c              |   2 +-
 lib/Kconfig.debug              | 115 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
 9 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)

Comments

Douglas Anderson June 7, 2023, 11:37 p.m. UTC | #1 
Hi,

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 8:25 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this patchset is supposed to replace the last patch in the patchset cleaning
> up after introducing the buddy detector, see
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230526184139.10.I821fe7609e57608913fe05abd8f35b343e7a9aae@changeid

I will let Andrew chime in with his preference, but so far I haven't
seen him dropping and/or modifying any patches that he's picked up in
this series. I see that he's already picked up the patch that you're
"replacing". I wonder if it would be easier for him if you just built
atop that?

-Doug