linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca,
	josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
	edumazet@google.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
	sbw@mit.edu, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/3] rcu: Fix rcu_barrier() documentation
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:25:51 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1376789153-27138-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130818012522.GA27015@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

There was a time when rcu_barrier() was guaranteed to wait for at least
a grace period, but that time ended due to energy-efficiency concerns.
So now rcu_barrier() is a no-op if there are no RCU callbacks queued in
the system.  This commit updates the documentation to reflect this change.

Now, rcu_barrier() often does wait for a grace period, so, one could
imagine some modification to rcu_barrier() to more efficiently handle
cases where both rcu_barrier() and a grace period are needed.  But this
must wait until someone shows a real-world need for a change.

Reported-by: Bob Copeland <bob@cozybit.com>
Reported-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt
index 2e319d1..b10cfe7 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt
@@ -70,10 +70,14 @@ in realtime kernels in order to avoid excessive scheduling latencies.
 
 rcu_barrier()
 
-We instead need the rcu_barrier() primitive. This primitive is similar
-to synchronize_rcu(), but instead of waiting solely for a grace
-period to elapse, it also waits for all outstanding RCU callbacks to
-complete. Pseudo-code using rcu_barrier() is as follows:
+We instead need the rcu_barrier() primitive.  Rather than waiting for
+a grace period to elapse, rcu_barrier() waits for all outstanding RCU
+callbacks to complete.  Please note that rcu_barrier() does -not- imply
+synchronize_rcu(), in particular, if there are no RCU callbacks queued
+anywhere, rcu_barrier() is within its rights to return immediately,
+without waiting for a grace period to elapse.
+
+Pseudo-code using rcu_barrier() is as follows:
 
    1. Prevent any new RCU callbacks from being posted.
    2. Execute rcu_barrier().
-- 
1.8.1.5


  reply	other threads:[~2013-08-18  1:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-08-18  1:25 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/3] Documentation updates for 3.12 Paul E. McKenney
2013-08-18  1:25 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2013-08-18  1:25   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] rcu: Update RTFP documentation Paul E. McKenney
2013-08-18  2:46     ` Josh Triplett
2013-08-19  0:20       ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-08-19  0:38         ` Josh Triplett
2013-08-19  4:09           ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-08-18  1:25   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/3] doc: Fix memory-barrier control-dependency example Paul E. McKenney
2013-08-18  2:47 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/3] Documentation updates for 3.12 Josh Triplett
2013-08-20  7:09 ` Rob Landley
2013-08-20 13:39   ` Paul E. McKenney
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-08-20  2:37 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/3] v2 " Paul E. McKenney
2013-08-20  2:37 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/3] rcu: Fix rcu_barrier() documentation Paul E. McKenney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1376789153-27138-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=darren@dvhart.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sbw@mit.edu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).