From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/20] doc: rcu: Remove obsolete checklist item about synchronize_rcu usage
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:56:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181111195645.9205-13-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181111195619.GA6958@linux.ibm.com>
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Since the RCU mechanisms have been consolidated, the checklist item
warning that synchronize_rcu() waits only for RCU readers is obsolete.
This commit therefore removes this checklist item.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
---
Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt | 37 +++++++--------------------------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
index cc22ce49618d..b90ad1b0665a 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
@@ -320,37 +320,14 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
will break Alpha, cause aggressive compilers to generate bad code,
and confuse people trying to read your code.
-11. Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until
- all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side
- critical sections complete. It does -not- necessarily guarantee
- that all currently running interrupts, NMIs, preempt_disable()
- code, or idle loops will complete. Therefore, if your
- read-side critical sections are protected by something other
- than rcu_read_lock(), do -not- use synchronize_rcu().
-
- Similarly, disabling preemption is not an acceptable substitute
- for rcu_read_lock(). Code that attempts to use preemption
- disabling where it should be using rcu_read_lock() will break
- in CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernel builds.
-
- If you want to wait for interrupt handlers, NMI handlers, and
- code under the influence of preempt_disable(), you instead
- need to use synchronize_irq() or synchronize_sched().
-
- This same limitation also applies to synchronize_rcu_bh()
- and synchronize_srcu(), as well as to the asynchronous and
- expedited forms of the three primitives, namely call_rcu(),
- call_rcu_bh(), call_srcu(), synchronize_rcu_expedited(),
- synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited().
-
-12. Any lock acquired by an RCU callback must be acquired elsewhere
+11. Any lock acquired by an RCU callback must be acquired elsewhere
with softirq disabled, e.g., via spin_lock_irqsave(),
spin_lock_bh(), etc. Failing to disable irq on a given
acquisition of that lock will result in deadlock as soon as
the RCU softirq handler happens to run your RCU callback while
interrupting that acquisition's critical section.
-13. RCU callbacks can be and are executed in parallel. In many cases,
+12. RCU callbacks can be and are executed in parallel. In many cases,
the callback code simply wrappers around kfree(), so that this
is not an issue (or, more accurately, to the extent that it is
an issue, the memory-allocator locking handles it). However,
@@ -366,7 +343,7 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
not the case, a self-spawning RCU callback would prevent the
victim CPU from ever going offline.)
-14. Unlike other forms of RCU, it -is- permissible to block in an
+13. Unlike other forms of RCU, it -is- permissible to block in an
SRCU read-side critical section (demarked by srcu_read_lock()
and srcu_read_unlock()), hence the "SRCU": "sleepable RCU".
Please note that if you don't need to sleep in read-side critical
@@ -410,7 +387,7 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
Note that rcu_dereference() and rcu_assign_pointer() relate to
SRCU just as they do to other forms of RCU.
-15. The whole point of call_rcu(), synchronize_rcu(), and friends
+14. The whole point of call_rcu(), synchronize_rcu(), and friends
is to wait until all pre-existing readers have finished before
carrying out some otherwise-destructive operation. It is
therefore critically important to -first- remove any path
@@ -422,13 +399,13 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
is the caller's responsibility to guarantee that any subsequent
readers will execute safely.
-16. The various RCU read-side primitives do -not- necessarily contain
+15. The various RCU read-side primitives do -not- necessarily contain
memory barriers. You should therefore plan for the CPU
and the compiler to freely reorder code into and out of RCU
read-side critical sections. It is the responsibility of the
RCU update-side primitives to deal with this.
-17. Use CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD, and the
+16. Use CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD, and the
__rcu sparse checks to validate your RCU code. These can help
find problems as follows:
@@ -451,7 +428,7 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
These debugging aids can help you find problems that are
otherwise extremely difficult to spot.
-18. If you register a callback using call_rcu(), call_rcu_bh(),
+17. If you register a callback using call_rcu(), call_rcu_bh(),
call_rcu_sched(), or call_srcu(), and pass in a function defined
within a loadable module, then it in necessary to wait for
all pending callbacks to be invoked after the last invocation
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-11 19:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-11 19:56 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/20] Documentation updates for v4.21/v5.0 Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/20] doc: Set down forward-progress requirements Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] doc: Clarify RCU data-structure comment about rcu_tree fanout Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/20] doc: Remove rcu_preempt_state reference in stallwarn Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/20] doc: rcu: Update information about resched_cpu Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/20] doc: rcu: Remove rcu_dynticks from Data-Structures Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/20] doc: rcu: Update Data-Structures for RCU flavor consolidation Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/20] doc: rcu: Better clarify the rcu_segcblist ->len field Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/20] doc: rcu: Update description of gp_seq fields in rcu_data Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/20] doc: Document rcutorture forward-progress test kernel parameters Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/20] doc: rcu: Update core and full API in whatisRCU Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/20] doc: rcu: Add more rationale for using rcu_read_lock_sched in checklist Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/20] doc: rcu: Remove obsolete suggestion from checklist Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/20] doc: rcu: Encourage use of rcu_barrier in checklist Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/20] doc: Make reader aware of rcu_dereference_protected Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/20] doc: Remove obsolete (non-)requirement about disabling preemption Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/20] doc: Make listing in RCU perf/scale requirements use rcu_assign_pointer() Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 18/20] doc: RCU scheduler spinlock rcu_read_unlock() restriction remains Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 19/20] doc: Correct parameter in stallwarn Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-11 19:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 20/20] doc: Fix "struction" typo in RCU memory-ordering 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=20181111195645.9205-13-paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--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