Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #88465

Re: Request to backport CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK to 6.12 stable

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/17/2025, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:30:51AM -0700, William McVicker wrote:
> > On 07/17/2025, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2025-07-16 at 13:25 -0700, William McVicker wrote:
> > > > On 07/16/2025, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 09:39:28AM -0700, William McVicker wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Recently utilization clamping was enabled in the 6.15 experimental kernel via
> > > > > > the options UCLAMP_TASK and UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP [1] per the request in [2]. I'd
> > > > > > like to request for this change to backported to the ARM64 6.12 stable kernel
> > > > > > to allow us to use this feature with a stable kernel for better performance
> > > > > > management of VMs on arm64 servers.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Please let me know if there are any concerns or additional steps I need to
> > > > > > take.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is a new feature, and at this point of the release preparation
> > > > > for trixie it won't be accepted anymore as it is not adding hardware
> > > > > support. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > That means you likely will need to use later a bpo version for trixie.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the response! Yes, I'm fine with using a bpo kernel version.
> > > > Currently we are using the kernel version 6.12.32-1~bpo12+1. Is it possible to
> > > > backport the change to the bookworm bpo kernel?
> > > 
> > > As this change was requested too late for trixie, it is not suitable for
> > > bookworm-backports.  In general, <release-N>-backports can only be used
> > > for backports from <release-N+1>.
> > > 
> > > There *are* also <release-N>-backports-sloppy suites which can contain
> > > backports from <release-N+2>, but I have never uploaded kernel packages
> > > to those and I don't plan to start.
> > 
> > Thanks for the explanation. I see there is already a branch called
> > 6.12-backports [1], but it is a bit outdated. Am I able to request for the
> > backport to trixie bpo kernel now or do I need to wait until the final
> > trixie release?
> 
> I suspect there might be some missunderstanding of the situation? The
> mentioned branch is in a personal packaing fork and has nothing to do
> with backports to the respective branches officially.

Sorry I'm not savvy on how the Debian branching works.

> 
> As mentioned by Ben, the change you are looking for will likely land
> soon after trixie release into trixie-backports, but for bookworm we
> do not intent to do 6.12 backports to bookworm-backports-sloppy.

This answers my question/request. I understand the patch won't be picked up for
any bookworm kernel. I'm okay with updating to the trixie-backports kernel when
it's available.

Thanks,
Will

Back to linux.debian.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Request to backport CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK to 6.12 stable William McVicker <willmcvicker@google.com> - 2025-07-10 19:00 +0200
  Re: Request to backport CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK to 6.12 stable Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2025-07-16 08:20 +0200
    Re: Request to backport CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK to 6.12 stable William McVicker <willmcvicker@google.com> - 2025-07-16 22:50 +0200
      Re: Request to backport CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK to 6.12 stable Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2025-07-17 16:40 +0200
        Re: Request to backport CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK to 6.12 stable William McVicker <willmcvicker@google.com> - 2025-07-17 19:50 +0200
          Re: Request to backport CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK to 6.12 stable Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2025-07-17 23:40 +0200
            Re: Request to backport CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK to 6.12 stable William McVicker <willmcvicker@google.com> - 2025-07-18 00:20 +0200

csiph-web