mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org
To: rcu@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, paulmck@kernel.org,
	neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org, neeraj.upadhyay@amd.com,
	boqun.feng@gmail.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, urezki@gmail.com,
	frederic@kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH rcu 02/12] doc: Remove RCU Tasks Rude asynchronous APIs
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 12:19:11 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240816064921.57645-2-neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240816064730.GA56949@neeraj.linux>

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>

The call_rcu_tasks_rude() and rcu_barrier_tasks_rude() APIs are no longer.
This commit therefore removes them from the documentation.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org>
---
 .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst  |  3 +-
 Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst               | 61 +++++++++----------
 Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst               |  2 +-
 .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt         |  8 ---
 4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
index f511476b4550..6125e7068d2c 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
@@ -2649,8 +2649,7 @@ those that are idle from RCU's perspective) and then Tasks Rude RCU can
 be removed from the kernel.
 
 The tasks-rude-RCU API is also reader-marking-free and thus quite compact,
-consisting of call_rcu_tasks_rude(), synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude(),
-and rcu_barrier_tasks_rude().
+consisting solely of synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude().
 
 Tasks Trace RCU
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
index 3e6407de231c..7de3e308f330 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
@@ -194,14 +194,13 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 		when publicizing a pointer to a structure that can
 		be traversed by an RCU read-side critical section.
 
-5.	If any of call_rcu(), call_srcu(), call_rcu_tasks(),
-	call_rcu_tasks_rude(), or call_rcu_tasks_trace() is used,
-	the callback function may be invoked from softirq context,
-	and in any case with bottom halves disabled.  In particular,
-	this callback function cannot block.  If you need the callback
-	to block, run that code in a workqueue handler scheduled from
-	the callback.  The queue_rcu_work() function does this for you
-	in the case of call_rcu().
+5.	If any of call_rcu(), call_srcu(), call_rcu_tasks(), or
+	call_rcu_tasks_trace() is used, the callback function may be
+	invoked from softirq context, and in any case with bottom halves
+	disabled.  In particular, this callback function cannot block.
+	If you need the callback to block, run that code in a workqueue
+	handler scheduled from the callback.  The queue_rcu_work()
+	function does this for you in the case of call_rcu().
 
 6.	Since synchronize_rcu() can block, it cannot be called
 	from any sort of irq context.  The same rule applies
@@ -254,10 +253,10 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 		corresponding readers must use rcu_read_lock_trace()
 		and rcu_read_unlock_trace().
 
-	c.	If an updater uses call_rcu_tasks_rude() or
-		synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude(), then the corresponding
-		readers must use anything that disables preemption,
-		for example, preempt_disable() and preempt_enable().
+	c.	If an updater uses synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude(),
+		then the corresponding readers must use anything that
+		disables preemption, for example, preempt_disable()
+		and preempt_enable().
 
 	Mixing things up will result in confusion and broken kernels, and
 	has even resulted in an exploitable security issue.  Therefore,
@@ -326,11 +325,9 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	d.	Periodically invoke rcu_barrier(), permitting a limited
 		number of updates per grace period.
 
-	The same cautions apply to call_srcu(), call_rcu_tasks(),
-	call_rcu_tasks_rude(), and call_rcu_tasks_trace().  This is
-	why there is an srcu_barrier(), rcu_barrier_tasks(),
-	rcu_barrier_tasks_rude(), and rcu_barrier_tasks_rude(),
-	respectively.
+	The same cautions apply to call_srcu(), call_rcu_tasks(), and
+	call_rcu_tasks_trace().  This is why there is an srcu_barrier(),
+	rcu_barrier_tasks(), and rcu_barrier_tasks_trace(), respectively.
 
 	Note that although these primitives do take action to avoid
 	memory exhaustion when any given CPU has too many callbacks,
@@ -383,17 +380,17 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	must use whatever locking or other synchronization is required
 	to safely access and/or modify that data structure.
 
-	Do not assume that RCU callbacks will be executed on
-	the same CPU that executed the corresponding call_rcu(),
-	call_srcu(), call_rcu_tasks(), call_rcu_tasks_rude(), or
-	call_rcu_tasks_trace().  For example, if a given CPU goes offline
-	while having an RCU callback pending, then that RCU callback
-	will execute on some surviving CPU.  (If this was not the case,
-	a self-spawning RCU callback would prevent the victim CPU from
-	ever going offline.)  Furthermore, CPUs designated by rcu_nocbs=
-	might well *always* have their RCU callbacks executed on some
-	other CPUs, in fact, for some  real-time workloads, this is the
-	whole point of using the rcu_nocbs= kernel boot parameter.
+	Do not assume that RCU callbacks will be executed on the same
+	CPU that executed the corresponding call_rcu(), call_srcu(),
+	call_rcu_tasks(), or call_rcu_tasks_trace().  For example, if
+	a given CPU goes offline while having an RCU callback pending,
+	then that RCU callback will execute on some surviving CPU.
+	(If this was not the case, a self-spawning RCU callback would
+	prevent the victim CPU from ever going offline.)  Furthermore,
+	CPUs designated by rcu_nocbs= might well *always* have their
+	RCU callbacks executed on some other CPUs, in fact, for some
+	real-time workloads, this is the whole point of using the
+	rcu_nocbs= kernel boot parameter.
 
 	In addition, do not assume that callbacks queued in a given order
 	will be invoked in that order, even if they all are queued on the
@@ -507,9 +504,9 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	These debugging aids can help you find problems that are
 	otherwise extremely difficult to spot.
 
-17.	If you pass a callback function defined within a module to one of
-	call_rcu(), call_srcu(), call_rcu_tasks(), call_rcu_tasks_rude(),
-	or call_rcu_tasks_trace(), then it is necessary to wait for all
+17.	If you pass a callback function defined within a module
+	to one of call_rcu(), call_srcu(), call_rcu_tasks(), or
+	call_rcu_tasks_trace(), then it is necessary to wait for all
 	pending callbacks to be invoked before unloading that module.
 	Note that it is absolutely *not* sufficient to wait for a grace
 	period!  For example, synchronize_rcu() implementation is *not*
@@ -522,7 +519,6 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	-	call_rcu() -> rcu_barrier()
 	-	call_srcu() -> srcu_barrier()
 	-	call_rcu_tasks() -> rcu_barrier_tasks()
-	-	call_rcu_tasks_rude() -> rcu_barrier_tasks_rude()
 	-	call_rcu_tasks_trace() -> rcu_barrier_tasks_trace()
 
 	However, these barrier functions are absolutely *not* guaranteed
@@ -539,7 +535,6 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	-	Either synchronize_srcu() or synchronize_srcu_expedited(),
 		together with and srcu_barrier()
 	-	synchronize_rcu_tasks() and rcu_barrier_tasks()
-	-	synchronize_tasks_rude() and rcu_barrier_tasks_rude()
 	-	synchronize_tasks_trace() and rcu_barrier_tasks_trace()
 
 	If necessary, you can use something like workqueues to execute
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
index d585a5490aee..1ef5784c1b84 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
@@ -1103,7 +1103,7 @@ RCU-Tasks-Rude::
 
 	Critical sections	Grace period		Barrier
 
-	N/A			call_rcu_tasks_rude	rcu_barrier_tasks_rude
+	N/A						N/A
 				synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude
 
 
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
index f1384c7b59c9..a6107b745076 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -5572,14 +5572,6 @@
 			of zero will disable batching.	Batching is
 			always disabled for synchronize_rcu_tasks().
 
-	rcupdate.rcu_tasks_rude_lazy_ms= [KNL]
-			Set timeout in milliseconds RCU Tasks
-			Rude asynchronous callback batching for
-			call_rcu_tasks_rude().	A negative value
-			will take the default.	A value of zero will
-			disable batching.  Batching is always disabled
-			for synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude().
-
 	rcupdate.rcu_tasks_trace_lazy_ms= [KNL]
 			Set timeout in milliseconds RCU Tasks
 			Trace asynchronous callback batching for
-- 
2.40.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-08-16  6:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-16  6:47 [PATCH rcu 00/12] RCU tasks updates for v6.12 Neeraj Upadhyay
2024-08-16  6:49 ` [PATCH rcu 01/12] tools/rcu: Remove RCU Tasks Rude asynchronous APIs from rcu-updaters.sh neeraj.upadhyay
2024-08-16  6:49 ` neeraj.upadhyay [this message]
2024-08-16  6:49 ` [PATCH rcu 03/12] rcutorture: Stop testing RCU Tasks Rude asynchronous APIs neeraj.upadhyay
2024-08-16  6:49 ` [PATCH rcu 04/12] rcuscale: " neeraj.upadhyay
2024-08-16  6:49 ` [PATCH rcu 05/12] rcu-tasks: Remove " neeraj.upadhyay
2024-08-16  6:49 ` [PATCH rcu 06/12] rcu-tasks: Fix access non-existent percpu rtpcp variable in rcu_tasks_need_gpcb() neeraj.upadhyay
2024-08-16  6:49 ` [PATCH rcu 07/12] rcu/tasks: Check processor-ID assumptions neeraj.upadhyay
2024-08-16  6:49 ` [PATCH rcu 08/12] rcu/tasks: Update rtp->tasks_gp_seq comment neeraj.upadhyay
2024-08-16  6:49 ` [PATCH rcu 09/12] rcu: Provide rcu_barrier_cb_is_done() to check rcu_barrier() CBs neeraj.upadhyay
2024-08-16  6:49 ` [PATCH rcu 10/12] rcu/tasks: Mark callbacks not currently participating in barrier operation neeraj.upadhyay
2024-08-16  6:49 ` [PATCH rcu 11/12] rcu/tasks: Add detailed grace-period and barrier diagnostics neeraj.upadhyay
2024-08-16  6:49 ` [PATCH rcu 12/12] rcu/tasks: Add rcu_barrier_tasks*() start time to diagnostics neeraj.upadhyay

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240816064921.57645-2-neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org \
    --to=neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neeraj.upadhyay@amd.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®