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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEErCspvTSmr92z9o8157/I7JWGEQkFAmh5CUAACgkQ57/I7JWG EQl8zQ//TnBmbKZUQ4mOYgWOZ0KhH1OQrPKfowwBozbA6i4PrMMc5yPbCaaD9zDb ji95sbxSCTGjJyU/eSJNEGi1HkEFswl8EPc5sfSV51NAQeFA+2LgA+L5Zwl+XcQt jqXTrLIVb8Woes90HFWwgWZtjCr1IauONlbXic9n9uFHNs+1uN9BmLkhQ2j+OXKY HzrcEhHBvnOR2GvekTZqWTm5k8WmfZwN0a9Un2qJjNin9P9mX1miQYNNyjSfR7v9 la5dCqaLw9OvPVAmlPaO33SKHP/ue6jZIKEujOiHNBEiC4P5eZAoAhbI/mEE0KBD A2sEh1LZ67lfVTmxRFxczlIE5+Bn2iEU3nG/ZWZ3L+T+ZI2qK4yv9wT4ekfbCKVt WnZauge5xe8twiBl3DnswBSSeKaxeZ/MRcBHrBuRBb+BruR6ywCRjVjJTDJjX6Wm j/1Y+FQSgwzbm4MkeUTsyk/OJdgaiQtQGYtz9eYcjQo8iwOWqXNMhHe33pQx3I9s kkUQG+U1JAWY8/ro/K0uoGbSZozTxZdJ0VrvicVeG3gGOApZXhUbvHx3I4kdbn0m /chSAjCD8pO5IPoldqYNXHc4Ib9z1hz49CpZLPM8hF/jr772NWlG7vqGhlgz/SaJ aSYKYbk4WgaEVAIIXj9z86SfVR0gfw7pOpnU4wfxMOmYUBk6O6A=
=B4yG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)