Merge branch 'master' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6

S: ask per mail for current address

N: Nicolas Pitre

E: nico@cam.org

E: nico@fluxnic.net

D: StrongARM SA1100 support integrator & hacker

D: Xscale PXA architecture

D: unified SMC 91C9x/91C11x ethernet driver (smc91x)

	- info on the Block I/O (BIO) layer.

blockdev/

	- info on block devices & drivers

btmrvl.txt

	- info on Marvell Bluetooth driver usage.

cachetlb.txt

	- describes the cache/TLB flushing interfaces Linux uses.

cdrom/

	RCU, realtime RCU, sleepable RCU, performance.

"

}

@article{PaulEMcKenney2008RCUOSR

,author="Paul E. McKenney and Jonathan Walpole"

,title="Introducing technology into the {Linux} kernel: a case study"

,Year="2008"

,journal="SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev."

,volume="42"

,number="5"

,pages="4--17"

,issn="0163-5980"

,doi={http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1400097.1400099}

,publisher="ACM"

,address="New York, NY, USA"

,annotation={

	Linux changed RCU to a far greater degree than RCU has changed Linux.

}

}

@unpublished{PaulEMcKenney2008HierarchicalRCU

,Author="Paul E. McKenney"

,Title="Hierarchical {RCU}"

,month="November"

,day="3"

,year="2008"

,note="Available:

\url{http://lwn.net/Articles/305782/}

[Viewed November 6, 2008]"

,annotation="

	RCU with combining-tree-based grace-period detection,

	permitting it to handle thousands of CPUs.

"

}

@conference{PaulEMcKenney2009MaliciousURCU

,Author="Paul E. McKenney"

,Title="Using a Malicious User-Level {RCU} to Torture {RCU}-Based Algorithms"

,Booktitle="linux.conf.au 2009"

,month="January"

,year="2009"

,address="Hobart, Australia"

,note="Available:

\url{http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/urcutorture.2009.01.22a.pdf}

[Viewed February 2, 2009]"

,annotation="

	Realtime RCU and torture-testing RCU uses.

"

}

@unpublished{MathieuDesnoyers2009URCU

,Author="Mathieu Desnoyers"

,Title="[{RFC} git tree] Userspace {RCU} (urcu) for {Linux}"

,month="February"

,day="5"

,year="2009"

,note="Available:

\url{http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/2/5/572}

\url{git://lttng.org/userspace-rcu.git}

[Viewed February 20, 2009]"

,annotation="

	Mathieu Desnoyers's user-space RCU implementation.

	git://lttng.org/userspace-rcu.git

"

}

@unpublished{PaulEMcKenney2009BloatWatchRCU

,Author="Paul E. McKenney"

,Title="{RCU}: The {Bloatwatch} Edition"

,month="March"

,day="17"

,year="2009"

,note="Available:

\url{http://lwn.net/Articles/323929/}

[Viewed March 20, 2009]"

,annotation="

	Uniprocessor assumptions allow simplified RCU implementation.

"

}

A common misconception is that, on UP systems, the call_rcu() primitive

may immediately invoke its function, and that the synchronize_rcu()

primitive may return immediately.  The basis of this misconception

may immediately invoke its function.  The basis of this misconception

is that since there is only one CPU, it should not be necessary to

wait for anything else to get done, since there are no other CPUs for

anything else to be happening on.  Although this approach will -sort- -of-

work a surprising amount of the time, it is a very bad idea in general.

This document presents three examples that demonstrate exactly how bad an

idea this is.

This document presents three examples that demonstrate exactly how bad

an idea this is.

Example 1: softirq Suicide

Summary

Permitting call_rcu() to immediately invoke its arguments or permitting

synchronize_rcu() to immediately return breaks RCU, even on a UP system.

So do not do it!  Even on a UP system, the RCU infrastructure -must-

respect grace periods, and -must- invoke callbacks from a known environment

in which no locks are held.

Permitting call_rcu() to immediately invoke its arguments breaks RCU,

even on a UP system.  So do not do it!  Even on a UP system, the RCU

infrastructure -must- respect grace periods, and -must- invoke callbacks

from a known environment in which no locks are held.

It -is- safe for synchronize_sched() and synchronize_rcu_bh() to return

immediately on an UP system.  It is also safe for synchronize_rcu()

to return immediately on UP systems, except when running preemptable

RCU.

Quick Quiz #3: Why can't synchronize_rcu() return immediately on

	UP systems running preemptable RCU?

Answer to Quick Quiz #1:

	callbacks acquire locks directly.  However, a great many RCU

	callbacks do acquire locks -indirectly-, for example, via

	the kfree() primitive.

Answer to Quick Quiz #3:

	Why can't synchronize_rcu() return immediately on UP systems

	running preemptable RCU?

	Because some other task might have been preempted in the middle

	of an RCU read-side critical section.  If synchronize_rcu()

	simply immediately returned, it would prematurely signal the

	end of the grace period, which would come as a nasty shock to

	that other thread when it started running again.

	structure is updated more than about 10% of the time, then

	you should strongly consider some other approach, unless

	detailed performance measurements show that RCU is nonetheless

	the right tool for the job.

	the right tool for the job.  Yes, you might think of RCU

	as simply cutting overhead off of the readers and imposing it

	on the writers.  That is exactly why normal uses of RCU will

	do much more reading than updating.

	Another exception is where performance is not an issue, and RCU

	provides a simpler implementation.  An example of this situation

	instead need to use synchronize_irq() or synchronize_sched().

12.	Any lock acquired by an RCU callback must be acquired elsewhere

	with irq disabled, e.g., via spin_lock_irqsave().  Failing to

	disable irq on a given acquisition of that lock will result in

	deadlock as soon as the RCU callback happens to interrupt that

	acquisition's critical section.

	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 callback happens to interrupt that acquisition's critical

	section.

13.	RCU callbacks can be and are executed in parallel.  In many cases,

	the callback code simply wrappers around kfree(), so that this

	Because these primitives only wait for pre-existing readers,

	it is the caller's responsibility to guarantee safety to

	any subsequent readers.

16.	The various RCU read-side primitives do -not- contain memory

	barriers.  The CPU (and in some cases, the compiler) is free

	to 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.