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

Yury Norov
2025-04-24T03:11:55Z

On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 02:27:46PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> +James
>
> Hi Yury,
>
> On 4/7/25 8:38 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.
> >
> > Yury Norov (4):
> > relax cpumask_any_but()
> > find: add find_first_andnot_bit()
> > cpumask_first_andnot
> > resctrl
>
> (sidenote: above list of patch subjects do not match the series)
>
> Thank you very much for doing this work. This simplifies resctrl code
> significantly. I do have a couple of comments that you will find in
> the individual patches.

Sure, glad to see you like it.

> Regarding upstreaming I would like to propose that the upstreaming of
> this work be split so that resctrl changes do not go upstream
> via separate trees during this cycle. I am ok with delaying the resctrl
> portion of this work for a cycle. This is because we hope to include a
> huge change [1] to resctrl that includes the code modified in this series.
> Having these two changes meet during merge window will be inconvenient
> for maintainers involved. If you require a user to upstream these new
> helpers then another possibility is to upstream this work via the tip repo
> if that is ok with x86 maintainers so that that huge resctrl patch is created on
> top if this work.
>
> Reinette
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250411164229.23413-18-james.morse@arm.com/

I can move all the patches with my branch (bitmap-for-next) if you ack
the restcl part, or let resctl folks (you, I guess) take over the series.
Or we can split it, so I'll move generic part myself, and you'll move
the last patch.

Thanks,
Yury