linux-kernel - [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/16] rcu: Fix synchronize_rcu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1460474975-24560-4-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:29:23 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	bobby.prani@...il.com,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/16] rcu: Fix synchronize_rcu_expedited() header comment

This commit brings the synchronize_rcu_expedited() function's header
comment into line with the new implementation.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 20 +++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index efdf7b61ce12..a2ac2628ef8e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -722,13 +722,19 @@ static void sync_rcu_exp_handler(void *info)
  * synchronize_rcu_expedited - Brute-force RCU grace period
  *
  * Wait for an RCU-preempt grace period, but expedite it.  The basic
- * idea is to invoke synchronize_sched_expedited() to push all the tasks to
- * the ->blkd_tasks lists and wait for this list to drain.  This consumes
- * significant time on all CPUs and is unfriendly to real-time workloads,
- * so is thus not recommended for any sort of common-case code.
- * In fact, if you are using synchronize_rcu_expedited() in a loop,
- * please restructure your code to batch your updates, and then Use a
- * single synchronize_rcu() instead.
+ * idea is to IPI all non-idle non-nohz online CPUs.  The IPI handler
+ * checks whether the CPU is in an RCU-preempt critical section, and
+ * if so, it sets a flag that causes the outermost rcu_read_unlock()
+ * to report the quiescent state.  On the other hand, if the CPU is
+ * not in an RCU read-side critical section, the IPI handler reports
+ * the quiescent state immediately.
+ *
+ * Although this is a greate improvement over previous expedited
+ * implementations, it is still unfriendly to real-time workloads, so is
+ * thus not recommended for any sort of common-case code.  In fact, if
+ * you are using synchronize_rcu_expedited() in a loop, please restructure
+ * your code to batch your updates, and then Use a single synchronize_rcu()
+ * instead.
  */
 void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
 {
-- 
2.5.2