From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: rcu@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: [PATCH rcu 7/7] rcu: Remove references to old grace-period-wait primitives
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 12:02:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250116200239.3782374-7-paulmck@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a2c2793d-771a-436e-8c42-4cb38def0e2f@paulmck-laptop>
The rcu_barrier_sched(), synchronize_sched(), and synchronize_rcu_bh()
RCU API members have been gone for many years. This commit therefore
removes non-historical instances of them.
Reported-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
---
Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst | 5 +----
include/linux/rcupdate.h | 17 +++++++----------
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
index 6da7f66da2a80..12a7b059654f7 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst
@@ -329,10 +329,7 @@ Answer:
was first added back in 2005. This is because on_each_cpu()
disables preemption, which acted as an RCU read-side critical
section, thus preventing CPU 0's grace period from completing
- until on_each_cpu() had dealt with all of the CPUs. However,
- with the advent of preemptible RCU, rcu_barrier() no longer
- waited on nonpreemptible regions of code in preemptible kernels,
- that being the job of the new rcu_barrier_sched() function.
+ until on_each_cpu() had dealt with all of the CPUs.
However, with the RCU flavor consolidation around v4.20, this
possibility was once again ruled out, because the consolidated
diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 48e5c03df1dd8..3bb554723074d 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -806,11 +806,9 @@ do { \
* sections, invocation of the corresponding RCU callback is deferred
* until after the all the other CPUs exit their critical sections.
*
- * In v5.0 and later kernels, synchronize_rcu() and call_rcu() also
- * wait for regions of code with preemption disabled, including regions of
- * code with interrupts or softirqs disabled. In pre-v5.0 kernels, which
- * define synchronize_sched(), only code enclosed within rcu_read_lock()
- * and rcu_read_unlock() are guaranteed to be waited for.
+ * Both synchronize_rcu() and call_rcu() also wait for regions of code
+ * with preemption disabled, including regions of code with interrupts or
+ * softirqs disabled.
*
* Note, however, that RCU callbacks are permitted to run concurrently
* with new RCU read-side critical sections. One way that this can happen
@@ -865,11 +863,10 @@ static __always_inline void rcu_read_lock(void)
* rcu_read_unlock() - marks the end of an RCU read-side critical section.
*
* In almost all situations, rcu_read_unlock() is immune from deadlock.
- * In recent kernels that have consolidated synchronize_sched() and
- * synchronize_rcu_bh() into synchronize_rcu(), this deadlock immunity
- * also extends to the scheduler's runqueue and priority-inheritance
- * spinlocks, courtesy of the quiescent-state deferral that is carried
- * out when rcu_read_unlock() is invoked with interrupts disabled.
+ * This deadlock immunity also extends to the scheduler's runqueue
+ * and priority-inheritance spinlocks, courtesy of the quiescent-state
+ * deferral that is carried out when rcu_read_unlock() is invoked with
+ * interrupts disabled.
*
* See rcu_read_lock() for more information.
*/
--
2.40.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-16 20:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-16 20:02 [PATCH rcu 0/7] Documentation upates Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-16 20:02 ` [PATCH rcu 1/7] doc: Add broken-timing possibility to stallwarn.rst Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-16 20:02 ` [PATCH rcu 2/7] docs: Improve discussion of this_cpu_ptr(), add raw_cpu_ptr() Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-16 21:02 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-01-16 22:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-16 20:02 ` [PATCH rcu 3/7] rcu: Document self-propagating callbacks Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-16 21:38 ` Jens Axboe
2025-01-16 20:02 ` [PATCH rcu 4/7] srcu: Point call_srcu() to call_rcu() for detailed memory ordering Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-16 20:02 ` [PATCH rcu 5/7] rcu: Add CONFIG_RCU_LAZY delays to call_rcu() kernel-doc header Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-16 20:02 ` [PATCH rcu 6/7] rcu: Clarify RCU_LAZY and RCU_LAZY_DEFAULT_OFF help text Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-16 20:02 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2025-01-30 18:47 ` [PATCH rcu 0/7] Documentation upates Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-30 18:49 ` [PATCH rcu v2 1/7] doc: Add broken-timing possibility to stallwarn.rst Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-30 18:49 ` [PATCH rcu v2 2/7] docs: Improve discussion of this_cpu_ptr(), add raw_cpu_ptr() Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-30 18:49 ` [PATCH rcu v2 3/7] rcu: Document self-propagating callbacks Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-30 18:49 ` [PATCH rcu v2 4/7] srcu: Point call_srcu() to call_rcu() for detailed memory ordering Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-30 18:49 ` [PATCH rcu v2 5/7] rcu: Add CONFIG_RCU_LAZY delays to call_rcu() kernel-doc header Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-30 18:49 ` [PATCH rcu v2 6/7] rcu: Clarify RCU_LAZY and RCU_LAZY_DEFAULT_OFF help text Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-30 18:49 ` [PATCH rcu v2 7/7] rcu: Remove references to old grace-period-wait primitives Paul E. McKenney
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-02-18 5:45 [PATCH rcu 0/7] RCU documentation changes for v6.15 Boqun Feng
2025-02-18 5:45 ` [PATCH rcu 7/7] rcu: Remove references to old grace-period-wait primitives Boqun Feng
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=20250116200239.3782374-7-paulmck@kernel.org \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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