On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 9:18 AM Donald Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:43 AM Guenter Roeck <groeck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 1:05 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > > <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I remember Daniel Wagner has been asking to include PREEMPT_RT within > > > kernelci. I don't really know what the status here is. Thank you for the > > > work. > > > > > > Since PREEMPT_RT is now available upstream, would it work to compile and > > > enable some of its tests for the supported architectures on Linus' tree > > > and maybe the -next tree? I don't think that happens at the moment, I > > > saw only a few stable-rt trees. > > > > > > If so, should I just open an issue at > > > https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-core/issues/new > > > > > > Is there be anything in particular you need help with? > > > > > > > Unrelated to KernelCI - how stable is PREEMPT_RT in practice ? Reason > > for asking is that I enabled it for x86_64 together with lock > > debugging and got an almost immediate "sleeping function called" > > backtrace. > > Red Hat has been selling a kernel-rt product for almost a decade now. > It should be fairly stable. We also enable lock debugging on our > debug version of kernel-rt and I don't recall anyone seeing anything > (though those debug kernels are slow). We may not have the same > config options set and haven't seen it yet. Stacktrace? > Two so far. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rt-devel/760e34f9-6034-40e0-82a5-ee9becd24438@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rt-devel/d9480845-7e81-46a2-8bbd-bd0ebdbc6a5f@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ Guenter
