[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200325163919.GU19865@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 09:39:19 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Kurt Schwemmer <kurt.schwemmer@...rosemi.com>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Nick Hu <nickhu@...estech.com>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
Vincent Chen <deanbo422@...il.com>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
Brian Cain <bcain@...eaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: Documentation/locking/locktypes: Further clarifications and
wordsmithing
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 05:02:12PM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-03-25 13:27:49 [+0100], Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > The documentation of rw_semaphores is wrong as it claims that the non-owner
> > reader release is not supported by RT. That's just history biased memory
> > distortion.
> >
> > Split the 'Owner semantics' section up and add separate sections for
> > semaphore and rw_semaphore to reflect reality.
> >
> > Aside of that the following updates are done:
> >
> > - Add pseudo code to document the spinlock state preserving mechanism on
> > PREEMPT_RT
> >
> > - Wordsmith the bitspinlock and lock nesting sections
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Acked-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
>
> > --- a/Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst
> …
> > +rw_semaphore
> > +============
> > +
> > +rw_semaphore is a multiple readers and single writer lock mechanism.
> > +
> > +On non-PREEMPT_RT kernels the implementation is fair, thus preventing
> > +writer starvation.
> > +
> > +rw_semaphore complies by default with the strict owner semantics, but there
> > +exist special-purpose interfaces that allow non-owner release for readers.
> > +These work independent of the kernel configuration.
>
> This reads funny, could be my English. "This works independent …" maybe?
The "These" refers to "interfaces", which is plural, so "These" rather
than "This". But yes, it is a bit awkward, because you have to skip
back past "readers", "release", and "non-owner" to find the implied
subject of that last sentence.
So how about this instead, making the implied subject explicit?
rw_semaphore complies by default with the strict owner semantics, but there
exist special-purpose interfaces that allow non-owner release for readers.
These interfaces work independent of the kernel configuration.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists