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

[Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>]

Dear x86 Maintainers,

On 5/2/25 8:32 AM, Yury Norov wrote:
> 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.
> 

Could you please consider this work for inclusion into tip's
x86/cache branch? 

Thank you very much.

Reinette