Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] sched/fair: Fix unthrottle_cfs_rq() for leaf_cfs_rq list" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree

[Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>]

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 10:56, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 07:27:09PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Le lundi 25 mai 2020 à 16:42:49 (+0200), gregkh@linuxfoundation.org a écrit :
> > >
> > > The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree.
> > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> > > id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
> >
> > This patch needs  commit
> >     b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more")
> > to be applied first. But then, it will not apply. The backport is :
> >
> > [ Upstream commit 39f23ce07b9355d05a64ae303ce20d1c4b92b957 upstream ]
> >
> > Although not exactly identical, unthrottle_cfs_rq() and enqueue_task_fair()
> > are quite close and follow the same sequence for enqueuing an entity in the
> > cfs hierarchy. Modify unthrottle_cfs_rq() to use the same pattern as
> > enqueue_task_fair(). This fixes a problem already faced with the latter and
> > add an optimization in the last for_each_sched_entity loop.
> >
> > Fixes: fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning)
> > Reported-by Tao Zhou <zohooouoto@zoho.com.cn>
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
> > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200513135528.4742-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> This patch doesn't apply to the 5.4.y tree at all.  Can someone please
> provide a working backport?

It seems that commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix
enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") has already been applied back
in May. But then, I'm able to apply this patch on top of
v5.4.y/v5.4.81

Thanks

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h