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

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #88331 > unrolled thread

Request to backport CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK to 6.12 stable

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

Contents

  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

#88331 — Request to backport CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK to 6.12 stable

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.

Thanks,
Will

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/carnil/linux/-/commit/ff88b7b8fb87fe2618926cf69f5ca066428b3456
[2] https://groups.google.com/g/linux.debian.kernel/c/qTeEMClBkRk

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#88423

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.

Regards,
Salvaotre

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88448

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?

Thanks,
Will

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88455

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88458

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?

Thanks,
Will

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/carnil/linux/-/tree/6.12-backports?ref_type=heads

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88464

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.

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.

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88465

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web