Merge branch 'rcu/next' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu into core/rcu

Pull the RCU tree from Paul E. McKenney:

"The major features of this series are:

1.	Preventing latency spikes of more than 200 microseconds for
	kernels built with NR_CPUS=4096, which is reportedly becoming
	the default for some distros.  This is a first step, as it does
	not help with systems that actually -have- 4096 CPUs (work on
	this case is in progress, but is not yet ready for mainline).
	This category also includes improving concurrency of rcu_barrier(),
	placed here due to conflicts.  Posted to LKML at:
	https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/22/381.  Note that patches 18-22
	of that series have been defered to 3.7, as they have not yet
	proven themselves to be mainline-ready (and yes, these are the
	ones intended to get rid of RCU's latency spikes for systems
	that actually have 4096 CPUs).
2.	Updates to documentation and rcutorture fixes, the latter category
	including improvements to rcu_barrier() testing.  Posted to LKML at:
	http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1206.1/04094.html.
3.	Miscellaneous fixes posted to LKML at:
	https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/22/500, with the exception of the
	last commit, which was posted here:
	http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1561830
4.	RCU_FAST_NO_HZ fixes and improvements.  Posted to LKML at:
	http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1206.1/00006.html
	and http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1561833.
	The first four patches of the first series went into 3.5 to fix
	a regression.
5.	Code-style fixes.  These were posted to LKML at
	http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1205.2/01180.html and
	http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1205.2/01181.html.
"

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt
index e439a0edee22..38428c125135 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt
@@ -79,8 +79,6 @@ complete. Pseudo-code using rcu_barrier() is as follows:
    2. Execute rcu_barrier().
    3. Allow the module to be unloaded.
 
-Quick Quiz #1: Why is there no srcu_barrier()?
-
 The rcutorture module makes use of rcu_barrier in its exit function
 as follows:
 
@@ -162,7 +160,7 @@ for any pre-existing callbacks to complete.
 Then lines 55-62 print status and do operation-specific cleanup, and
 then return, permitting the module-unload operation to be completed.
 
-Quick Quiz #2: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
+Quick Quiz #1: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
 	be required?
 
 Your module might have additional complications. For example, if your
@@ -242,7 +240,7 @@ reaches zero, as follows:
  4 complete(&rcu_barrier_completion);
  5 }
 
-Quick Quiz #3: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes
+Quick Quiz #2: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes
 	immediately (thus incrementing rcu_barrier_cpu_count to the
 	value one), but the other CPU's rcu_barrier_func() invocations
 	are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in
@@ -259,12 +257,7 @@ so that your module may be safely unloaded.
 
 Answers to Quick Quizzes
 
-Quick Quiz #1: Why is there no srcu_barrier()?
-
-Answer: Since there is no call_srcu(), there can be no outstanding SRCU
-	callbacks. Therefore, there is no need to wait for them.
-
-Quick Quiz #2: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
+Quick Quiz #1: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
 	be required?
 
 Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
@@ -278,7 +271,7 @@ Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
 	implementing rcutorture, and found that rcu_barrier() solves
 	this problem as well.
 
-Quick Quiz #3: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes
+Quick Quiz #2: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes
 	immediately (thus incrementing rcu_barrier_cpu_count to the
 	value one), but the other CPU's rcu_barrier_func() invocations
 	are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in