linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] sched/fair: alternative way of accounting throttle time

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ef402bac-3b41-4322-b5b2-224c874275e3@siemens.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 08:13:39 +0200
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com>,
 Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@...mens.com>,
 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Ben Segall
 <bsegall@...gle.com>, K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Vincent Guittot
 <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Xi Wang <xii@...gle.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
 Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
 Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>,
 Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] sched/fair: alternative way of accounting
 throttle time

On 08.05.25 04:45, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Florian Bezdeka wrote:
>> To sum up: This series fixes (or seems to fix, let's wait for one more
>> week to be sure) a critical RT issue. Is there a chance that once we
>> made it into mainline that we see (official) backports? 6.12 or 6.1
>> would be nice.
> 
> I don't think there will be official backports if this series entered
> mainline because stable kernels only take fixes while this series changed
> throttle behavior dramatically. Of course, this is just my personal
> view, and the maintainer will make the final decision.

With 6.12 carrying RT in-tree and this patches serious fixing a hard
lock-up of that configuration, a backport to 6.12-stable would be
required IMHO. Backports beyond that should be a topic for the
(separate) rt-stable trees.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Foundational Technologies
Linux Expert Center