On Fri, 1 Nov, 2019, 4:24 AM Paul E. McKenney, wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 06:31:28AM +0700, Phong Tran wrote: > > Sync the format with current state of kernel documentation. > > This change base on rcu-dev branch > > what changed: > > - Format bullet lists > > - Add literal blocks > > > > Signed-off-by: Phong Tran > > Queued and pushed with updated subject line and commit log, thank you! > > Could you and Madhuparna please review and test each other's > .rst-conversion patches? > Sure, I will do it. Regards Madhuparna > Thanx, Paul > > > --- > > Documentation/RCU/index.rst | 1 + > > .../RCU/{whatisRCU.txt => whatisRCU.rst} | 150 +++++++++++------- > > 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-) > > rename Documentation/RCU/{whatisRCU.txt => whatisRCU.rst} (91%) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/index.rst b/Documentation/RCU/index.rst > > index 627128c230dc..b9b11481c727 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/RCU/index.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/index.rst > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ RCU concepts > > :maxdepth: 3 > > > > arrayRCU > > + whatisRCU > > rcu > > listRCU > > NMI-RCU > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt > b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst > > similarity index 91% > > rename from Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt > > rename to Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst > > index 58ba05c4d97f..70d0e4c21917 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst > > @@ -1,15 +1,18 @@ > > +.. _rcu_doc: > > + > > What is RCU? -- "Read, Copy, Update" > > +====================================== > > > > Please note that the "What is RCU?" LWN series is an excellent place > > to start learning about RCU: > > > > -1. What is RCU, Fundamentally? http://lwn.net/Articles/262464/ > > -2. What is RCU? Part 2: Usage http://lwn.net/Articles/263130/ > > -3. RCU part 3: the RCU API http://lwn.net/Articles/264090/ > > -4. The RCU API, 2010 Edition http://lwn.net/Articles/418853/ > > - 2010 Big API Table http://lwn.net/Articles/419086/ > > -5. The RCU API, 2014 Edition http://lwn.net/Articles/609904/ > > - 2014 Big API Table http://lwn.net/Articles/609973/ > > +| 1. What is RCU, Fundamentally? http://lwn.net/Articles/262464/ > > +| 2. What is RCU? Part 2: Usage http://lwn.net/Articles/263130/ > > +| 3. RCU part 3: the RCU API http://lwn.net/Articles/264090/ > > +| 4. The RCU API, 2010 Edition http://lwn.net/Articles/418853/ > > +| 2010 Big API Table http://lwn.net/Articles/419086/ > > +| 5. The RCU API, 2014 Edition http://lwn.net/Articles/609904/ > > +| 2014 Big API Table http://lwn.net/Articles/609973/ > > > > > > What is RCU? > > @@ -51,6 +54,7 @@ never need this document anyway. ;-) > > > > > > 1. RCU OVERVIEW > > +---------------- > > > > The basic idea behind RCU is to split updates into "removal" and > > "reclamation" phases. The removal phase removes references to data > items > > @@ -118,6 +122,7 @@ Read on to learn about how RCU's API makes this easy. > > > > > > 2. WHAT IS RCU'S CORE API? > > +--------------------------- > > > > The core RCU API is quite small: > > > > @@ -166,7 +171,7 @@ synchronize_rcu() > > read-side critical sections on all CPUs have completed. > > Note that synchronize_rcu() will -not- necessarily wait for > > any subsequent RCU read-side critical sections to complete. > > - For example, consider the following sequence of events: > > + For example, consider the following sequence of events:: > > > > CPU 0 CPU 1 CPU 2 > > ----------------- ------------------------- --------------- > > @@ -248,13 +253,13 @@ rcu_dereference() > > > > Common coding practice uses rcu_dereference() to copy an > > RCU-protected pointer to a local variable, then dereferences > > - this local variable, for example as follows: > > + this local variable, for example as follows:: > > > > p = rcu_dereference(head.next); > > return p->data; > > > > However, in this case, one could just as easily combine these > > - into one statement: > > + into one statement:: > > > > return rcu_dereference(head.next)->data; > > > > @@ -267,7 +272,7 @@ rcu_dereference() > > > > Note that the value returned by rcu_dereference() is valid > > only within the enclosing RCU read-side critical section [1]. > > - For example, the following is -not- legal: > > + For example, the following is -not- legal:: > > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > p = rcu_dereference(head.next); > > @@ -315,6 +320,7 @@ rcu_dereference() > > > > The following diagram shows how each API communicates among the > > reader, updater, and reclaimer. > > +:: > > > > > > rcu_assign_pointer() > > @@ -377,10 +383,12 @@ for specialized uses, but are relatively uncommon. > > > > > > 3. WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLE USES OF CORE RCU API? > > +----------------------------------------------- > > > > This section shows a simple use of the core RCU API to protect a > > global pointer to a dynamically allocated structure. More-typical > > uses of RCU may be found in listRCU.txt, arrayRCU.txt, and NMI-RCU.txt. > > +:: > > > > struct foo { > > int a; > > @@ -467,13 +475,14 @@ arrayRCU.txt, and NMI-RCU.txt. > > > > > > 4. WHAT IF MY UPDATING THREAD CANNOT BLOCK? > > +-------------------------------------------- > > > > In the example above, foo_update_a() blocks until a grace period > elapses. > > This is quite simple, but in some cases one cannot afford to wait so > > long -- there might be other high-priority work to be done. > > > > In such cases, one uses call_rcu() rather than synchronize_rcu(). > > -The call_rcu() API is as follows: > > +The call_rcu() API is as follows:: > > > > void call_rcu(struct rcu_head * head, > > void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head)); > > @@ -481,7 +490,7 @@ The call_rcu() API is as follows: > > This function invokes func(head) after a grace period has elapsed. > > This invocation might happen from either softirq or process context, > > so the function is not permitted to block. The foo struct needs to > > -have an rcu_head structure added, perhaps as follows: > > +have an rcu_head structure added, perhaps as follows:: > > > > struct foo { > > int a; > > @@ -490,7 +499,7 @@ have an rcu_head structure added, perhaps as follows: > > struct rcu_head rcu; > > }; > > > > -The foo_update_a() function might then be written as follows: > > +The foo_update_a() function might then be written as follows:: > > > > /* > > * Create a new struct foo that is the same as the one currently > > @@ -520,7 +529,7 @@ The foo_update_a() function might then be written as > follows: > > call_rcu(&old_fp->rcu, foo_reclaim); > > } > > > > -The foo_reclaim() function might appear as follows: > > +The foo_reclaim() function might appear as follows:: > > > > void foo_reclaim(struct rcu_head *rp) > > { > > @@ -552,7 +561,7 @@ o Use call_rcu() -after- removing a data element > from an > > > > If the callback for call_rcu() is not doing anything more than calling > > kfree() on the structure, you can use kfree_rcu() instead of call_rcu() > > -to avoid having to write your own callback: > > +to avoid having to write your own callback:: > > > > kfree_rcu(old_fp, rcu); > > > > @@ -560,6 +569,7 @@ Again, see checklist.txt for additional rules > governing the use of RCU. > > > > > > 5. WHAT ARE SOME SIMPLE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF RCU? > > +------------------------------------------------ > > > > One of the nice things about RCU is that it has extremely simple "toy" > > implementations that are a good first step towards understanding the > > @@ -591,7 +601,7 @@ you allow nested rcu_read_lock() calls, you can > deadlock. > > However, it is probably the easiest implementation to relate to, so is > > a good starting point. > > > > -It is extremely simple: > > +It is extremely simple:: > > > > static DEFINE_RWLOCK(rcu_gp_mutex); > > > > @@ -614,7 +624,7 @@ It is extremely simple: > > > > [You can ignore rcu_assign_pointer() and rcu_dereference() without > missing > > much. But here are simplified versions anyway. And whatever you do, > > -don't forget about them when submitting patches making use of RCU!] > > +don't forget about them when submitting patches making use of RCU!]:: > > > > #define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v) \ > > ({ \ > > @@ -659,6 +669,7 @@ This section presents a "toy" RCU implementation > that is based on > > on features such as hotplug CPU and the ability to run in CONFIG_PREEMPT > > kernels. The definitions of rcu_dereference() and rcu_assign_pointer() > > are the same as those shown in the preceding section, so they are > omitted. > > +:: > > > > void rcu_read_lock(void) { } > > > > @@ -707,10 +718,12 @@ Quick Quiz #3: If it is illegal to block in an > RCU read-side > > > > > > 6. ANALOGY WITH READER-WRITER LOCKING > > +-------------------------------------- > > > > Although RCU can be used in many different ways, a very common use of > > RCU is analogous to reader-writer locking. The following unified > > diff shows how closely related RCU and reader-writer locking can be. > > +:: > > > > @@ -5,5 +5,5 @@ struct el { > > int data; > > @@ -762,7 +775,7 @@ diff shows how closely related RCU and reader-writer > locking can be. > > return 0; > > } > > > > -Or, for those who prefer a side-by-side listing: > > +Or, for those who prefer a side-by-side listing:: > > > > 1 struct el { 1 struct el { > > 2 struct list_head list; 2 struct list_head list; > > @@ -774,40 +787,44 @@ Or, for those who prefer a side-by-side listing: > > 8 rwlock_t listmutex; 8 spinlock_t listmutex; > > 9 struct el head; 9 struct el head; > > > > - 1 int search(long key, int *result) 1 int search(long key, int > *result) > > - 2 { 2 { > > - 3 struct list_head *lp; 3 struct list_head *lp; > > - 4 struct el *p; 4 struct el *p; > > - 5 5 > > - 6 read_lock(&listmutex); 6 rcu_read_lock(); > > - 7 list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) { 7 list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, > head, lp) { > > - 8 if (p->key == key) { 8 if (p->key == key) { > > - 9 *result = p->data; 9 *result = p->data; > > -10 read_unlock(&listmutex); 10 rcu_read_unlock(); > > -11 return 1; 11 return 1; > > -12 } 12 } > > -13 } 13 } > > -14 read_unlock(&listmutex); 14 rcu_read_unlock(); > > -15 return 0; 15 return 0; > > -16 } 16 } > > - > > - 1 int delete(long key) 1 int delete(long key) > > - 2 { 2 { > > - 3 struct el *p; 3 struct el *p; > > - 4 4 > > - 5 write_lock(&listmutex); 5 spin_lock(&listmutex); > > - 6 list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) { 6 list_for_each_entry(p, > head, lp) { > > - 7 if (p->key == key) { 7 if (p->key == key) { > > - 8 list_del(&p->list); 8 list_del_rcu(&p->list); > > - 9 write_unlock(&listmutex); 9 spin_unlock(&listmutex); > > - 10 synchronize_rcu(); > > -10 kfree(p); 11 kfree(p); > > -11 return 1; 12 return 1; > > -12 } 13 } > > -13 } 14 } > > -14 write_unlock(&listmutex); 15 spin_unlock(&listmutex); > > -15 return 0; 16 return 0; > > -16 } 17 } > > +:: > > + > > + 1 int search(long key, int *result) 1 int search(long key, int > *result) > > + 2 { 2 { > > + 3 struct list_head *lp; 3 struct list_head *lp; > > + 4 struct el *p; 4 struct el *p; > > + 5 5 > > + 6 read_lock(&listmutex); 6 rcu_read_lock(); > > + 7 list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) { 7 list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, > head, lp) { > > + 8 if (p->key == key) { 8 if (p->key == key) { > > + 9 *result = p->data; 9 *result = p->data; > > + 10 read_unlock(&listmutex); 10 rcu_read_unlock(); > > + 11 return 1; 11 return 1; > > + 12 } 12 } > > + 13 } 13 } > > + 14 read_unlock(&listmutex); 14 rcu_read_unlock(); > > + 15 return 0; 15 return 0; > > + 16 } 16 } > > + > > +:: > > + > > + 1 int delete(long key) 1 int delete(long key) > > + 2 { 2 { > > + 3 struct el *p; 3 struct el *p; > > + 4 4 > > + 5 write_lock(&listmutex); 5 spin_lock(&listmutex); > > + 6 list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) { 6 list_for_each_entry(p, > head, lp) { > > + 7 if (p->key == key) { 7 if (p->key == key) { > > + 8 list_del(&p->list); 8 list_del_rcu(&p->list); > > + 9 write_unlock(&listmutex); 9 > spin_unlock(&listmutex); > > + 10 synchronize_rcu(); > > + 10 kfree(p); 11 kfree(p); > > + 11 return 1; 12 return 1; > > + 12 } 13 } > > + 13 } 14 } > > + 14 write_unlock(&listmutex); 15 spin_unlock(&listmutex); > > + 15 return 0; 16 return 0; > > + 16 } 17 } > > > > Either way, the differences are quite small. Read-side locking moves > > to rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock, update-side locking moves from > > @@ -827,13 +844,14 @@ be used in place of synchronize_rcu(). > > > > > > 7. FULL LIST OF RCU APIs > > +------------------------- > > > > The RCU APIs are documented in docbook-format header comments in the > > Linux-kernel source code, but it helps to have a full list of the > > APIs, since there does not appear to be a way to categorize them > > in docbook. Here is the list, by category. > > > > -RCU list traversal: > > +RCU list traversal:: > > > > list_entry_rcu > > list_first_entry_rcu > > @@ -854,7 +872,7 @@ RCU list traversal: > > hlist_bl_first_rcu > > hlist_bl_for_each_entry_rcu > > > > -RCU pointer/list update: > > +RCU pointer/list udate:: > > > > rcu_assign_pointer > > list_add_rcu > > @@ -876,7 +894,9 @@ RCU pointer/list update: > > hlist_bl_del_rcu > > hlist_bl_set_first_rcu > > > > -RCU: Critical sections Grace period Barrier > > +RCU:: > > + > > + Critical sections Grace period Barrier > > > > rcu_read_lock synchronize_net rcu_barrier > > rcu_read_unlock synchronize_rcu > > @@ -885,7 +905,9 @@ RCU: Critical sections Grace period > Barrier > > rcu_dereference_check kfree_rcu > > rcu_dereference_protected > > > > -bh: Critical sections Grace period Barrier > > +bh:: > > + > > + Critical sections Grace period Barrier > > > > rcu_read_lock_bh call_rcu rcu_barrier > > rcu_read_unlock_bh synchronize_rcu > > @@ -896,7 +918,9 @@ bh: Critical sections Grace period > Barrier > > rcu_dereference_bh_protected > > rcu_read_lock_bh_held > > > > -sched: Critical sections Grace period Barrier > > +sched:: > > + > > + Critical sections Grace period Barrier > > > > rcu_read_lock_sched call_rcu rcu_barrier > > rcu_read_unlock_sched synchronize_rcu > > @@ -910,7 +934,9 @@ sched: Critical sections Grace period > Barrier > > rcu_read_lock_sched_held > > > > > > -SRCU: Critical sections Grace period Barrier > > +SRCU:: > > + > > + Critical sections Grace period Barrier > > > > srcu_read_lock call_srcu srcu_barrier > > srcu_read_unlock synchronize_srcu > > @@ -918,13 +944,14 @@ SRCU: Critical sections Grace period > Barrier > > srcu_dereference_check > > srcu_read_lock_held > > > > -SRCU: Initialization/cleanup > > +SRCU: Initialization/cleanup:: > > + > > DEFINE_SRCU > > DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU > > init_srcu_struct > > cleanup_srcu_struct > > > > -All: lockdep-checked RCU-protected pointer access > > +All: lockdep-checked RCU-protected pointer access:: > > > > rcu_access_pointer > > rcu_dereference_raw > > @@ -976,6 +1003,7 @@ the right tool for your job. > > > > > > 8. ANSWERS TO QUICK QUIZZES > > +---------------------------- > > > > Quick Quiz #1: Why is this argument naive? How could a deadlock > > occur when using this algorithm in a real-world Linux > > -- > > 2.20.1 > > >