[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251202132212.uxWTkFJd@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 14:22:12 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
stable-rt <stable-rt@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@...mens.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] softirq: Use a dedicated thread for timer wakeups
on PREEMPT_RT.
On 2025-12-02 13:39:56 [+0100], Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 02.12.25 09:24, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2025-12-01 22:51:50 [+0100], Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> How should we handle this? Consider 6.12 mainline with -rt and cgroups
> >> as potentially broken, asking people to user 6.12-rt? Or port this back?
> >
> > If you have everything in v6.12 for an useable RT system and this is the
> > only missing piece I could ask the stable nicely to backport this.
> >
>
> Given that this is a fix for potential lock-up... Does it have
> dependencies? The other two patches in this series are optimizations
> only, or should they better join the backport?
Just an optimisation if I am not mistaken but it will conflict if not
backported.
> Jan
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists