* Some more feedback on Chapter 9
@ 2016-07-28 13:06 Akira Yokosawa
2016-07-28 17:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Akira Yokosawa @ 2016-07-28 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul E. McKenney; +Cc: perfbook, Akira Yokosawa
Hi Paul,
There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback.
I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
* At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form
"Authors: ...".
But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit.
I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is
no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been
written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would
be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.
* Position of Quick Quiz 9.44 looks a little premature. SRCU is mentioned
just after the Quick Quiz.
* The 2nd sentence of Section 9.5.4.4 ends as "... in the companion article."
This seems like a vestige of its origin in LWN. Should be fixed to match
the context.
* In the introduction of Section 9.5.5, understanding of the whole Chapter 9
is listed in the prerequisite for the "toy" implementation. I suppose
recursion is not intended here.
* Also in the introduction of Section 9.5.5, Section 9.5.5.2 is not mentioned.
* (Typo) In the 2nd paragraph of Section 9.7, there is a redundant "can" in
"... so that updates can can operate locally, ...".
(Yes, I can submit the fix of this one as a patch. If you want me to do so,
please let me know.)
* (Apart from Chapter 9) In Section 14.2.10.1, there are four instances of
$\dagger$ for introducing notes. I'm wondering if they can be converted
to footnotes. I'm not sure where they should be placed in the text, though.
I said earlier there were a few issues, but in the end there are a quite a few.
I don't mind if some (or all) of them be taken care of later after the upcoming
release.
Thanks, Akira
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Some more feedback on Chapter 9
2016-07-28 13:06 Some more feedback on Chapter 9 Akira Yokosawa
@ 2016-07-28 17:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-28 21:41 ` Akira Yokosawa
2016-07-28 21:59 ` Akira Yokosawa
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2016-07-28 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Akira Yokosawa; +Cc: perfbook
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:06:22PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback.
> I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
>
> * At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form
> "Authors: ...".
> But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit.
> I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
> There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is
> no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been
> written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would
> be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.
Good point! I am guessing that these predated \OriginallyPublished{}, and
that I didn't get around to fixing them properly. I have now fixed them.
> * Position of Quick Quiz 9.44 looks a little premature. SRCU is mentioned
> just after the Quick Quiz.
Good catch, moved.
> * The 2nd sentence of Section 9.5.4.4 ends as "... in the companion article."
> This seems like a vestige of its origin in LWN. Should be fixed to match
> the context.
Now it is "Section~\ref{sec:defer:RCU Usage}", good eyes!
> * In the introduction of Section 9.5.5, understanding of the whole Chapter 9
> is listed in the prerequisite for the "toy" implementation. I suppose
> recursion is not intended here.
You know, that is strangely appropriate, now that you mention it! ;-)
But how about the following?
Nevertheless, you will need a thorough understanding of Chapters
2, 3, 4, and 6, as well as the previous portions of Chapter 9 for
even these toy RCU implementations to be easily understandable.
> * Also in the introduction of Section 9.5.5, Section 9.5.5.2 is not mentioned.
Fixed! Now "Section 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9".
> * (Typo) In the 2nd paragraph of Section 9.7, there is a redundant "can" in
> "... so that updates can can operate locally, ...".
> (Yes, I can submit the fix of this one as a patch. If you want me to do so,
> please let me know.)
I fixed it with your Reported-by.
And here is the Youtube video corresponding to that particular typo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Diu2N8TGKA
> * (Apart from Chapter 9) In Section 14.2.10.1, there are four instances of
> $\dagger$ for introducing notes. I'm wondering if they can be converted
> to footnotes. I'm not sure where they should be placed in the text, though.
Odd. Those were there in the initial git commit.
I am removing the $\dagger$ commands and thus letting them be normal
paragraphs.
> I said earlier there were a few issues, but in the end there are a quite a few.
>
> I don't mind if some (or all) of them be taken care of later after the upcoming
> release.
They were all reasonably easy, so might as well do them now. Famous
last words. ;-)
I commited and pushed them all.
Thanx, Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Some more feedback on Chapter 9
2016-07-28 17:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
@ 2016-07-28 21:41 ` Akira Yokosawa
2016-07-28 22:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-28 21:59 ` Akira Yokosawa
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Akira Yokosawa @ 2016-07-28 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paulmck; +Cc: perfbook, Akira Yokosawa
On 2016/07/28 10:40:57 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:06:22PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback.
>> I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
>>
>> * At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form
>> "Authors: ...".
>> But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit.
>> I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
>> There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is
>> no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been
>> written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would
>> be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.
>
> Good point! I am guessing that these predated \OriginallyPublished{}, and
> that I didn't get around to fixing them properly. I have now fixed them.
>
>> * Position of Quick Quiz 9.44 looks a little premature. SRCU is mentioned
>> just after the Quick Quiz.
>
> Good catch, moved.
>
>> * The 2nd sentence of Section 9.5.4.4 ends as "... in the companion article."
>> This seems like a vestige of its origin in LWN. Should be fixed to match
>> the context.
>
> Now it is "Section~\ref{sec:defer:RCU Usage}", good eyes!
>
>> * In the introduction of Section 9.5.5, understanding of the whole Chapter 9
>> is listed in the prerequisite for the "toy" implementation. I suppose
>> recursion is not intended here.
>
> You know, that is strangely appropriate, now that you mention it! ;-)
>
> But how about the following?
>
> Nevertheless, you will need a thorough understanding of Chapters
> 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well as the previous portions of Chapter 9 for
> even these toy RCU implementations to be easily understandable.
It's perfect!
>
>> * Also in the introduction of Section 9.5.5, Section 9.5.5.2 is not mentioned.
>
> Fixed! Now "Section 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9".
>
Wouldn't "Sections 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9" be better?
>> * (Typo) In the 2nd paragraph of Section 9.7, there is a redundant "can" in
>> "... so that updates can can operate locally, ...".
>> (Yes, I can submit the fix of this one as a patch. If you want me to do so,
>> please let me know.)
>
> I fixed it with your Reported-by.
>
> And here is the Youtube video corresponding to that particular typo:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Diu2N8TGKA
:-)
>
>> * (Apart from Chapter 9) In Section 14.2.10.1, there are four instances of
>> $\dagger$ for introducing notes. I'm wondering if they can be converted
>> to footnotes. I'm not sure where they should be placed in the text, though.
>
> Odd. Those were there in the initial git commit.
>
> I am removing the $\dagger$ commands and thus letting them be normal
> paragraphs.
>
>> I said earlier there were a few issues, but in the end there are a quite a few.
>>
>> I don't mind if some (or all) of them be taken care of later after the upcoming
>> release.
>
> They were all reasonably easy, so might as well do them now. Famous
> last words. ;-)
>
> I commited and pushed them all.
Quick work!
There is one thing I forgot to mention.
In Appendix C.7.3, ARM-v7's memory barrier instructions are explained.
My understanding is that ARM-v8's memory barrier instructions are in line
with the semantics of Linux kernel's memory barrier primitives.
Wouldn't it be worth to mention somewhere, e.g., in a footnote?
Thanks, Akira
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Some more feedback on Chapter 9
2016-07-28 17:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-28 21:41 ` Akira Yokosawa
@ 2016-07-28 21:59 ` Akira Yokosawa
2016-07-28 22:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Akira Yokosawa @ 2016-07-28 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paulmck; +Cc: perfbook, Akira Yokosawa
On 2016/07/29 2:40, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:06:22PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback.
>> I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
>>
>> * At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form
>> "Authors: ...".
>> But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit.
>> I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
>> There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is
>> no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been
>> written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would
>> be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.
>
> Good point! I am guessing that these predated \OriginallyPublished{}, and
> that I didn't get around to fixing them properly. I have now fixed them.
And I'm wondering why I didn't realize the origin of Section 14.2 is
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt...
But they look fairly different now, don't they?
Thanks, Akira
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Some more feedback on Chapter 9
2016-07-28 21:41 ` Akira Yokosawa
@ 2016-07-28 22:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2016-07-28 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Akira Yokosawa; +Cc: perfbook
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 06:41:37AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On 2016/07/28 10:40:57 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:06:22PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback.
> >> I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
> >>
> >> * At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form
> >> "Authors: ...".
> >> But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit.
> >> I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
> >> There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is
> >> no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been
> >> written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would
> >> be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.
> >
> > Good point! I am guessing that these predated \OriginallyPublished{}, and
> > that I didn't get around to fixing them properly. I have now fixed them.
> >
> >> * Position of Quick Quiz 9.44 looks a little premature. SRCU is mentioned
> >> just after the Quick Quiz.
> >
> > Good catch, moved.
> >
> >> * The 2nd sentence of Section 9.5.4.4 ends as "... in the companion article."
> >> This seems like a vestige of its origin in LWN. Should be fixed to match
> >> the context.
> >
> > Now it is "Section~\ref{sec:defer:RCU Usage}", good eyes!
> >
> >> * In the introduction of Section 9.5.5, understanding of the whole Chapter 9
> >> is listed in the prerequisite for the "toy" implementation. I suppose
> >> recursion is not intended here.
> >
> > You know, that is strangely appropriate, now that you mention it! ;-)
> >
> > But how about the following?
> >
> > Nevertheless, you will need a thorough understanding of Chapters
> > 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well as the previous portions of Chapter 9 for
> > even these toy RCU implementations to be easily understandable.
>
> It's perfect!
>
> >
> >> * Also in the introduction of Section 9.5.5, Section 9.5.5.2 is not mentioned.
> >
> > Fixed! Now "Section 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9".
> >
>
> Wouldn't "Sections 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9" be better?
And fixed again. ;-)
> >> * (Typo) In the 2nd paragraph of Section 9.7, there is a redundant "can" in
> >> "... so that updates can can operate locally, ...".
> >> (Yes, I can submit the fix of this one as a patch. If you want me to do so,
> >> please let me know.)
> >
> > I fixed it with your Reported-by.
> >
> > And here is the Youtube video corresponding to that particular typo:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Diu2N8TGKA
>
> :-)
>
> >
> >> * (Apart from Chapter 9) In Section 14.2.10.1, there are four instances of
> >> $\dagger$ for introducing notes. I'm wondering if they can be converted
> >> to footnotes. I'm not sure where they should be placed in the text, though.
> >
> > Odd. Those were there in the initial git commit.
> >
> > I am removing the $\dagger$ commands and thus letting them be normal
> > paragraphs.
> >
> >> I said earlier there were a few issues, but in the end there are a quite a few.
> >>
> >> I don't mind if some (or all) of them be taken care of later after the upcoming
> >> release.
> >
> > They were all reasonably easy, so might as well do them now. Famous
> > last words. ;-)
> >
> > I commited and pushed them all.
>
> Quick work!
Easy changes. A hard change would be write a new chapter or some such. ;-)
> There is one thing I forgot to mention.
>
> In Appendix C.7.3, ARM-v7's memory barrier instructions are explained.
> My understanding is that ARM-v8's memory barrier instructions are in line
> with the semantics of Linux kernel's memory barrier primitives.
> Wouldn't it be worth to mention somewhere, e.g., in a footnote?
I do have "ARMv8 has recently added load-acquire and store-release
instructions" in a footnote.
The memory-barrier discussion needs a full rewrite, but that must
wait on some ongoing work to actually formally define what exactly the
Linux-kernel memory model is. That rewrite will bring in ARMv8.
Thanx, Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Some more feedback on Chapter 9
2016-07-28 21:59 ` Akira Yokosawa
@ 2016-07-28 22:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2016-07-28 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Akira Yokosawa; +Cc: perfbook
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 06:59:24AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On 2016/07/29 2:40, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:06:22PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback.
> >> I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
> >>
> >> * At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form
> >> "Authors: ...".
> >> But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit.
> >> I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
> >> There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is
> >> no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been
> >> written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would
> >> be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.
> >
> > Good point! I am guessing that these predated \OriginallyPublished{}, and
> > that I didn't get around to fixing them properly. I have now fixed them.
>
> And I'm wondering why I didn't realize the origin of Section 14.2 is
> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt...
> But they look fairly different now, don't they?
They do! The book has not kept up with memory-barriers.txt.
Again, once we formally define the Linux-kernel memory model, I will
rewrite the memory-barriers material, probably folding Section 14.2
and Appendix C together.
Thanx, Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-07-28 22:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-07-28 13:06 Some more feedback on Chapter 9 Akira Yokosawa
2016-07-28 17:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-28 21:41 ` Akira Yokosawa
2016-07-28 22:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-07-28 21:59 ` Akira Yokosawa
2016-07-28 22:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.