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 I see there is already a branch called 6.12-backports [1], but it is a bit outdated.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
