On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:00:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:38:01 -0700 Babu Moger <babu.moger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Currently we do not have a way to enable/disable arch specific
> > watchdog handlers if it was implemented by any of the architectures.
> >
> > This patch introduces new functions arch_watchdog_nmi_enable and
> > arch_watchdog_nmi_disable which can be used to enable/disable architecture
> > specific NMI watchdog handlers. These functions are defined as weak as
> > architectures can override their definitions to enable/disable nmi
> > watchdog behaviour.
> >
> > --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> > +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> > @@ -676,8 +660,13 @@ static void watchdog_nmi_disable(unsigned int cpu)
> > }
> >
> > #else
> > -static int watchdog_nmi_enable(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
> > -static void watchdog_nmi_disable(unsigned int cpu) { return; }
> > +/*
> > + * These two functions are mostly architecture specific
> > + * defining them as weak here.
> > + */
> > +int __weak arch_watchdog_nmi_enable(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
> > +void __weak arch_watchdog_nmi_disable(unsigned int cpu) { return; }
> > +
> > #endif /* CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR */
>
> This is a strange way of using __weak.
>
> Take a look at (one of many examples) kernel/module.c:module_alloc().
> We simply provide a default implementation and some other compilation
> unit can override (actually replace) that at link time. No strange
> ifdeffing needed.
Yeah, this is mostly because of how we enable the hardlockup detector.
Some arches use the perf hw and enable CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR. Other
arches just use their own variant of nmi and set CONFIG_HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG and
the rest of the arches do not use this.
So the thought was if CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR use that implementation,
everyone else use the __weak version. Then the arches like sparc can override
the weak version with their own nmi enablement.
I don't know how to represent those 3 states correctly and the above is what
we end up with.
>
> And I'm not really understanding the interaction with
> CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR here. I haven't really worked out why the
> code is all this way but it seems.... odd?
If the above explaination doesn't help, then can you point to some examples
where things seem odd?
Cheers,
Don
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
