Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] cpumask: add missing API and simplify cpumask_any_housekeeping()

[Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>]

On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 03:06:18PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Yury,
> 
> On 4/27/25 11:52 AM, Yury Norov wrote:
> > From: Yury Norov [NVIDIA] <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> > 
> > cpumask library missed some flavors of cpumask_any_but(), which makes
> > users to workaround it by using less efficient cpumask_nth() functions
> > 
> > This series adds missing cpumask_any_andnot_but() and makes
> > cpumask_any_but() understanding the RESCTRL_PICK_ANY_CPU hint.
> > This simplifies cpumask_any_housekeeping() significantly.
> > 
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250407153856.133093-1-yury.norov@gmail.com/
> > v2:
> >  - switch cpumask_any_but() functions to signed type for CPU (Reinette);
> >  - change name for the new function to cpumask_any_andnot_but() (James);
> >  - drop O(n*log(n)) comment. cpumask_nth() is slower, but still linear.
> > 
> > Yury Norov [NVIDIA] (4):
> >   cpumask: relax cpumask_any_but()
> >   find: add find_first_andnot_bit()
> >   cpumask: add cpumask_{first,next}_andnot() API
> >   x86/resctrl: optimize cpumask_any_housekeeping()
> 
> Reviewed-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
> 
> Does anything in your "bitmap-for-next" branch depend on this
> series? If not, would you be ok if this series goes upstream
> via tip (pending confirmation from tip maintainers) to make
> for smoother upstream of resctrl patches that touch the same area?
 
Sure, please take it with the resctrl material.

> Thank you very much for doing this work. 

Thanks for warm words. :)