[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] Doc: convert whatisRCU.txt to rst

[madhuparnabhowmik04 at gmail.com (Madhuparna Bhowmik)]

I reviewed this patch, and I have the following suggestions:

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 5:04 AM Phong Tran <tranmanphong at gmail.com> 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 <tranmanphong at gmail.com>
> ---
>  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/
>
>
Adding an external link here would be better.
like this :  `text <link URL>`_

 What is RCU?
> @@ -51,6 +54,7 @@ never need this document anyway.  ;-)
>
>
>
There is a list of topics that are covered in this documentation.
Like this:

1. RCU OVERVIEW
2. WHAT IS RCU?S CORE API?
3. WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLE USES OF CORE RCU API?
4. WHAT IF MY UPDATING THREAD CANNOT BLOCK?
...

 since this document is quite big adding cross-references to the above
would be helpful.


>  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
>

Here, the formatting is not proper. In the rst file, the question should be
added in the next line after Quick Quiz #1. Currently, half of the question
appears in bold and the rest half does not.
Also, as followed in all the documents there should be a cross-reference to
the answer to this question. As this document is quite big having
references would be helpful.
The same applies to all other quick quiz questions in this document and in
the Answers section as well the questions do not appear properly, half in
bold text and half not bold.

Apart from this, the other added changes look good!

Thank you
Madhuparna

-- 
> 2.20.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list
> Linux-kernel-mentees at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees
>
?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/linux-kernel-mentees/attachments/20191102/abc26822/attachment-0001.html>