From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.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,
dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
bobby.prani@gmail.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/2] documentation: Present updated RCU guarantee
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:47:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1479142030-15102-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161114164649.GA15056@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Recent memory-model work deduces the relationships of RCU read-side
critical sections and grace periods based on the relationships of
accesses within a critical section and accesses preceding and following
the grace period. This commit therefore adds this viewpoint.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
.../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html
index a4d3838130e4..81b40cb83435 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html
@@ -547,7 +547,7 @@ The <tt>rcu_access_pointer()</tt> on line 6 is similar to
It could reuse a value formerly fetched from this same pointer.
It could also fetch the pointer from <tt>gp</tt> in a byte-at-a-time
manner, resulting in <i>load tearing</i>, in turn resulting a bytewise
- mash-up of two distince pointer values.
+ mash-up of two distinct pointer values.
It might even use value-speculation optimizations, where it makes
a wrong guess, but by the time it gets around to checking the
value, an update has changed the pointer to match the wrong guess.
@@ -659,6 +659,29 @@ systems with more than one CPU:
In other words, a given instance of <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt>
can avoid waiting on a given RCU read-side critical section only
if it can prove that <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> started first.
+
+ <p>
+ A related question is “When <tt>rcu_read_lock()</tt>
+ doesn't generate any code, why does it matter how it relates
+ to a grace period?”
+ The answer if that it is not the relationship of
+ <tt>rcu_read_lock()</tt> itself that is important, but rather
+ the relationship of the code within the enclosed RCU read-side
+ critical section to the code preceding and following the
+ grace period.
+ If we take this viewpoint, then a given RCU read-side critical
+ section begins before a given grace period when some access
+ preceding the grace period observes the effect of some access
+ within the critical section, in which case none of the accesses
+ within the critical section may observe the effects of any
+ access following the grace period.
+
+ <p>
+ As of late 2016, mathematical models of RCU take this
+ viewpoint, for example, see slides 62 and 63
+ of the
+ <a href="http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/scalability/paper/LinuxMM.2016.10.04c.LCE.pdf">2016 LinuxCon EU</a>
+ presentation.
</font></td></tr>
<tr><td> </td></tr>
</table>
--
2.5.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-14 16:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-14 16:46 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/2] Documenmtation update for 4.10 Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-14 16:47 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2016-11-14 16:57 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/2] documentation: Present updated RCU guarantee Pranith Kumar
2016-11-14 18:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-14 16:47 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/2] Documentation/RCU: Fix minor typo 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=1479142030-15102-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®