|author||Paul E. McKenney <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2011-11-03 13:43:24 -0700|
|committer||Paul E. McKenney <email@example.com>||2011-12-11 10:31:41 -0800|
rcu: Add documentation for raw SRCU read-side primitives
Update various files in Documentation/RCU to reflect srcu_read_lock_raw() and srcu_read_unlock_raw(). Credit to Peter Zijlstra for suggesting use of the existing _raw suffix instead of the earlier bulkref names. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt')
1 files changed, 13 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
index 6ef692667e2f..8e8cdc2430b9 100644
@@ -834,6 +834,8 @@ SRCU: Critical sections Grace period Barrier
srcu_read_lock synchronize_srcu N/A
@@ -855,27 +857,33 @@ list can be helpful:
a. Will readers need to block? If so, you need SRCU.
-b. What about the -rt patchset? If readers would need to block
+b. Is it necessary to start a read-side critical section in a
+ hardirq handler or exception handler, and then to complete
+ this read-side critical section in the task that was
+ interrupted? If so, you need SRCU's srcu_read_lock_raw() and
+ srcu_read_unlock_raw() primitives.
+c. What about the -rt patchset? If readers would need to block
in an non-rt kernel, you need SRCU. If readers would block
in a -rt kernel, but not in a non-rt kernel, SRCU is not
-c. Do you need to treat NMI handlers, hardirq handlers,
+d. Do you need to treat NMI handlers, hardirq handlers,
and code segments with preemption disabled (whether
via preempt_disable(), local_irq_save(), local_bh_disable(),
or some other mechanism) as if they were explicit RCU readers?
If so, you need RCU-sched.
-d. Do you need RCU grace periods to complete even in the face
+e. Do you need RCU grace periods to complete even in the face
of softirq monopolization of one or more of the CPUs? For
example, is your code subject to network-based denial-of-service
attacks? If so, you need RCU-bh.
-e. Is your workload too update-intensive for normal use of
+f. Is your workload too update-intensive for normal use of
RCU, but inappropriate for other synchronization mechanisms?
If so, consider SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. But please be careful!
-f. Otherwise, use RCU.
+g. Otherwise, use RCU.
Of course, this all assumes that you have determined that RCU is in fact
the right tool for your job.