On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 03:03:29PM +0100, Guillaume Morin wrote: > On 19 Feb 16:03, Tomas Glozar wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > st 19. 2. 2025 v 15:48 odesílatel Guillaume Morin > > <guillaume@xxxxxxxxxxx> napsal: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > The following patches prevent Linux 6.6.78+ rtla to build: > > > > > > - "rtla/timerlat_top: Set OSNOISE_WORKLOAD for kernel threads" (stable > > > commit 41955b6c268154f81e34f9b61cf8156eec0730c0) > > > - "rtla/timerlat_hist: Set OSNOISE_WORKLOAD for kernel threads" (stable > > > commit 83b74901bdc9b58739193b8ee6989254391b6ba7) > > > > > > Both were added to Linux 6.6.78 based on the Fixes tag in the upstream > > > commits. > > > > > > These patches prevent 6.6.78 rta to build with a similar error (missing > > > kernel_workload in the params struct) > > > src/timerlat_top.c:687:52: error: ‘struct timerlat_top_params’ has no member named ‘kernel_workload’ > > > > > > > I did not realize that, sorry! > > > > > These patches appear to depend on "rtla/timerlat: Make user-space > > > threads the default" commit fb9e90a67ee9a42779a8ea296a4cf7734258b27d > > > which is not present in 6.6. > > > > > > I am not sure if it's better to revert them or pick up > > > fb9e90a67ee9a42779a8ea296a4cf7734258b27d in 6.6. Tomas, what do you > > > think? > > > > > > > We don't want to pick up fb9e90a67ee9a42779a8ea296a4cf7734258b27d > > (rtla/timerlat: Make user-space threads the default) to stable, since > > it changes the default behavior as well as output of rtla. > > > > The patches can be fixed by by substituting params->kernel_workload > > for !params->user_hist (!params->user_top) for the version of the > > files that is present in 6.6-stable (6.1-stable is not affected, since > > it doesn't have user workload mode at all). > > > > I'm not sure what the correct procedure would be. One way I can think > > of is reverting the patch as broken, and me sending an alternate > > version of the patch for 6.6-stable containing the change above. That > > would be the cleanest way in my opinion (as compared to sending the > > fixup directly). > > Either way would work for me. Not sure what Greg prefers however I prefer to take whatever is upstream, and if that doesn't work, and these were applied incorrectly, we can just revert them. thanks, greg k-h
