Commit e9a83bd2 authored by Linus Torvalds's avatar Linus Torvalds

Merge tag 'docs-5.3' of git://git.lwn.net/linux

Pull Documentation updates from Jonathan Corbet:
 "It's been a relatively busy cycle for docs:

   - A fair pile of RST conversions, many from Mauro. These create more
     than the usual number of simple but annoying merge conflicts with
     other trees, unfortunately. He has a lot more of these waiting on
     the wings that, I think, will go to you directly later on.

   - A new document on how to use merges and rebases in kernel repos,
     and one on Spectre vulnerabilities.

   - Various improvements to the build system, including automatic
     markup of function() references because some people, for reasons I
     will never understand, were of the opinion that
     :c:func:``function()`` is unattractive and not fun to type.

   - We now recommend using sphinx 1.7, but still support back to 1.4.

   - Lots of smaller improvements, warning fixes, typo fixes, etc"

* tag 'docs-5.3' of git://git.lwn.net/linux: (129 commits)
  docs: automarkup.py: ignore exceptions when seeking for xrefs
  docs: Move binderfs to admin-guide
  Disable Sphinx SmartyPants in HTML output
  doc: RCU callback locks need only _bh, not necessarily _irq
  docs: format kernel-parameters -- as code
  Doc : doc-guide : Fix a typo
  platform: x86: get rid of a non-existent document
  Add the RCU docs to the core-api manual
  Documentation: RCU: Add TOC tree hooks
  Documentation: RCU: Rename txt files to rst
  Documentation: RCU: Convert RCU UP systems to reST
  Documentation: RCU: Convert RCU linked list to reST
  Documentation: RCU: Convert RCU basic concepts to reST
  docs: filesystems: Remove uneeded .rst extension on toctables
  scripts/sphinx-pre-install: fix out-of-tree build
  docs: zh_CN: submitting-drivers.rst: Remove a duplicated Documentation/
  Documentation: PGP: update for newer HW devices
  Documentation: Add section about CPU vulnerabilities for Spectre
  Documentation: platform: Delete x86-laptop-drivers.txt
  docs: Note that :c:func: should no longer be used
  ...
parents 7011b7e1 454f96f2
......@@ -137,7 +137,8 @@ Description: Discover cpuidle policy and mechanism
current_governor: (RW) displays current idle policy. Users can
switch the governor at runtime by writing to this file.
See files in Documentation/cpuidle/ for more information.
See Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpuidle.rst and
Documentation/driver-api/pm/cpuidle.rst for more information.
What: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/cpuidle/stateN/name
......
......@@ -11,4 +11,4 @@ Description:
example would be, if User A has shares = 1024 and user
B has shares = 2048, User B will get twice the CPU
bandwidth user A will. For more details refer
Documentation/scheduler/sched-design-CFS.txt
Documentation/scheduler/sched-design-CFS.rst
......@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ call to set the mask to the value returned.
::
size_t
dma_direct_max_mapping_size(struct device *dev);
dma_max_mapping_size(struct device *dev);
Returns the maximum size of a mapping for the device. The size parameter
of the mapping functions like dma_map_single(), dma_map_page() and
......
:orphan:
====
EDID
====
In the good old days when graphics parameters were configured explicitly
in a file called xorg.conf, even broken hardware could be managed.
......@@ -34,16 +40,19 @@ Makefile. Please note that the EDID data structure expects the timing
values in a different way as compared to the standard X11 format.
X11:
HTimings: hdisp hsyncstart hsyncend htotal
VTimings: vdisp vsyncstart vsyncend vtotal
EDID:
#define XPIX hdisp
#define XBLANK htotal-hdisp
#define XOFFSET hsyncstart-hdisp
#define XPULSE hsyncend-hsyncstart
#define YPIX vdisp
#define YBLANK vtotal-vdisp
#define YOFFSET vsyncstart-vdisp
#define YPULSE vsyncend-vsyncstart
HTimings:
hdisp hsyncstart hsyncend htotal
VTimings:
vdisp vsyncstart vsyncend vtotal
EDID::
#define XPIX hdisp
#define XBLANK htotal-hdisp
#define XOFFSET hsyncstart-hdisp
#define XPULSE hsyncend-hsyncstart
#define YPIX vdisp
#define YBLANK vtotal-vdisp
#define YOFFSET vsyncstart-vdisp
#define YPULSE vsyncend-vsyncstart
config WARN_MISSING_DOCUMENTS
bool "Warn if there's a missing documentation file"
depends on COMPILE_TEST
help
It is not uncommon that a document gets renamed.
This option makes the Kernel to check for missing dependencies,
warning when something is missing. Works only if the Kernel
is built from a git tree.
If unsure, select 'N'.
......@@ -4,6 +4,11 @@
subdir-y := devicetree/bindings/
# Check for broken documentation file references
ifeq ($(CONFIG_WARN_MISSING_DOCUMENTS),y)
$(shell $(srctree)/scripts/documentation-file-ref-check --warn)
endif
# You can set these variables from the command line.
SPHINXBUILD = sphinx-build
SPHINXOPTS =
......@@ -23,11 +28,13 @@ ifeq ($(HAVE_SPHINX),0)
.DEFAULT:
$(warning The '$(SPHINXBUILD)' command was not found. Make sure you have Sphinx installed and in PATH, or set the SPHINXBUILD make variable to point to the full path of the '$(SPHINXBUILD)' executable.)
@echo
@./scripts/sphinx-pre-install
@$(srctree)/scripts/sphinx-pre-install
@echo " SKIP Sphinx $@ target."
else # HAVE_SPHINX
export SPHINXOPTS = $(shell perl -e 'open IN,"sphinx-build --version 2>&1 |"; while (<IN>) { if (m/([\d\.]+)/) { print "-jauto" if ($$1 >= "1.7") } ;} close IN')
# User-friendly check for pdflatex and latexmk
HAVE_PDFLATEX := $(shell if which $(PDFLATEX) >/dev/null 2>&1; then echo 1; else echo 0; fi)
HAVE_LATEXMK := $(shell if which latexmk >/dev/null 2>&1; then echo 1; else echo 0; fi)
......@@ -70,12 +77,14 @@ quiet_cmd_sphinx = SPHINX $@ --> file://$(abspath $(BUILDDIR)/$3/$4)
$(abspath $(BUILDDIR)/$3/$4)
htmldocs:
@$(srctree)/scripts/sphinx-pre-install --version-check
@+$(foreach var,$(SPHINXDIRS),$(call loop_cmd,sphinx,html,$(var),,$(var)))
linkcheckdocs:
@$(foreach var,$(SPHINXDIRS),$(call loop_cmd,sphinx,linkcheck,$(var),,$(var)))
latexdocs:
@$(srctree)/scripts/sphinx-pre-install --version-check
@+$(foreach var,$(SPHINXDIRS),$(call loop_cmd,sphinx,latex,$(var),latex,$(var)))
ifeq ($(HAVE_PDFLATEX),0)
......@@ -87,14 +96,17 @@ pdfdocs:
else # HAVE_PDFLATEX
pdfdocs: latexdocs
@$(srctree)/scripts/sphinx-pre-install --version-check
$(foreach var,$(SPHINXDIRS), $(MAKE) PDFLATEX="$(PDFLATEX)" LATEXOPTS="$(LATEXOPTS)" -C $(BUILDDIR)/$(var)/latex || exit;)
endif # HAVE_PDFLATEX
epubdocs:
@$(srctree)/scripts/sphinx-pre-install --version-check
@+$(foreach var,$(SPHINXDIRS),$(call loop_cmd,sphinx,epub,$(var),epub,$(var)))
xmldocs:
@$(srctree)/scripts/sphinx-pre-install --version-check
@+$(foreach var,$(SPHINXDIRS),$(call loop_cmd,sphinx,xml,$(var),xml,$(var)))
endif # HAVE_SPHINX
......
RCU on Uniprocessor Systems
.. _up_doc:
RCU on Uniprocessor Systems
===========================
A common misconception is that, on UP systems, the call_rcu() primitive
may immediately invoke its function. The basis of this misconception
is that since there is only one CPU, it should not be necessary to
wait for anything else to get done, since there are no other CPUs for
anything else to be happening on. Although this approach will -sort- -of-
anything else to be happening on. Although this approach will *sort of*
work a surprising amount of the time, it is a very bad idea in general.
This document presents three examples that demonstrate exactly how bad
an idea this is.
Example 1: softirq Suicide
--------------------------
Suppose that an RCU-based algorithm scans a linked list containing
elements A, B, and C in process context, and can delete elements from
......@@ -28,8 +30,8 @@ your kernel.
This same problem can occur if call_rcu() is invoked from a hardware
interrupt handler.
Example 2: Function-Call Fatality
---------------------------------
Of course, one could avert the suicide described in the preceding example
by having call_rcu() directly invoke its arguments only if it was called
......@@ -46,11 +48,13 @@ its arguments would cause it to fail to make the fundamental guarantee
underlying RCU, namely that call_rcu() defers invoking its arguments until
all RCU read-side critical sections currently executing have completed.
Quick Quiz #1: why is it -not- legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in
this case?
Quick Quiz #1:
Why is it *not* legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in this case?
:ref:`Answers to Quick Quiz <answer_quick_quiz_up>`
Example 3: Death by Deadlock
----------------------------
Suppose that call_rcu() is invoked while holding a lock, and that the
callback function must acquire this same lock. In this case, if
......@@ -76,25 +80,30 @@ there are cases where this can be quite ugly:
If call_rcu() directly invokes the callback, painful locking restrictions
or API changes would be required.
Quick Quiz #2: What locking restriction must RCU callbacks respect?
Quick Quiz #2:
What locking restriction must RCU callbacks respect?
:ref:`Answers to Quick Quiz <answer_quick_quiz_up>`
Summary
-------
Permitting call_rcu() to immediately invoke its arguments breaks RCU,
even on a UP system. So do not do it! Even on a UP system, the RCU
infrastructure -must- respect grace periods, and -must- invoke callbacks
infrastructure *must* respect grace periods, and *must* invoke callbacks
from a known environment in which no locks are held.
Note that it -is- safe for synchronize_rcu() to return immediately on
UP systems, including !PREEMPT SMP builds running on UP systems.
Note that it *is* safe for synchronize_rcu() to return immediately on
UP systems, including PREEMPT SMP builds running on UP systems.
Quick Quiz #3: Why can't synchronize_rcu() return immediately on
UP systems running preemptable RCU?
Quick Quiz #3:
Why can't synchronize_rcu() return immediately on UP systems running
preemptable RCU?
.. _answer_quick_quiz_up:
Answer to Quick Quiz #1:
Why is it -not- legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in this case?
Why is it *not* legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in this case?
Because the calling function is scanning an RCU-protected linked
list, and is therefore within an RCU read-side critical section.
......@@ -104,12 +113,13 @@ Answer to Quick Quiz #1:
Answer to Quick Quiz #2:
What locking restriction must RCU callbacks respect?
Any lock that is acquired within an RCU callback must be
acquired elsewhere using an _irq variant of the spinlock
primitive. For example, if "mylock" is acquired by an
RCU callback, then a process-context acquisition of this
lock must use something like spin_lock_irqsave() to
acquire the lock.
Any lock that is acquired within an RCU callback must be acquired
elsewhere using an _bh variant of the spinlock primitive.
For example, if "mylock" is acquired by an RCU callback, then
a process-context acquisition of this lock must use something
like spin_lock_bh() to acquire the lock. Please note that
it is also OK to use _irq variants of spinlocks, for example,
spin_lock_irqsave().
If the process-context code were to simply use spin_lock(),
then, since RCU callbacks can be invoked from softirq context,
......@@ -119,7 +129,7 @@ Answer to Quick Quiz #2:
This restriction might seem gratuitous, since very few RCU
callbacks acquire locks directly. However, a great many RCU
callbacks do acquire locks -indirectly-, for example, via
callbacks do acquire locks *indirectly*, for example, via
the kfree() primitive.
Answer to Quick Quiz #3:
......
.. _rcu_concepts:
============
RCU concepts
============
.. toctree::
:maxdepth: 1
rcu
listRCU
UP
.. only:: subproject and html
Indices
=======
* :ref:`genindex`
Using RCU to Protect Read-Mostly Linked Lists
.. _list_rcu_doc:
Using RCU to Protect Read-Mostly Linked Lists
=============================================
One of the best applications of RCU is to protect read-mostly linked lists
("struct list_head" in list.h). One big advantage of this approach
......@@ -7,8 +9,8 @@ is that all of the required memory barriers are included for you in
the list macros. This document describes several applications of RCU,
with the best fits first.
Example 1: Read-Side Action Taken Outside of Lock, No In-Place Updates
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The best applications are cases where, if reader-writer locking were
used, the read-side lock would be dropped before taking any action
......@@ -24,7 +26,7 @@ added or deleted, rather than being modified in place.
A straightforward example of this use of RCU may be found in the
system-call auditing support. For example, a reader-writer locked
implementation of audit_filter_task() might be as follows:
implementation of audit_filter_task() might be as follows::
static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
......@@ -48,7 +50,7 @@ the corresponding value is returned. By the time that this value is acted
on, the list may well have been modified. This makes sense, since if
you are turning auditing off, it is OK to audit a few extra system calls.
This means that RCU can be easily applied to the read side, as follows:
This means that RCU can be easily applied to the read side, as follows::
static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
......@@ -73,7 +75,7 @@ become list_for_each_entry_rcu(). The _rcu() list-traversal primitives
insert the read-side memory barriers that are required on DEC Alpha CPUs.
The changes to the update side are also straightforward. A reader-writer
lock might be used as follows for deletion and insertion:
lock might be used as follows for deletion and insertion::
static inline int audit_del_rule(struct audit_rule *rule,
struct list_head *list)
......@@ -106,7 +108,7 @@ lock might be used as follows for deletion and insertion:
return 0;
}
Following are the RCU equivalents for these two functions:
Following are the RCU equivalents for these two functions::
static inline int audit_del_rule(struct audit_rule *rule,
struct list_head *list)
......@@ -154,13 +156,13 @@ otherwise cause concurrent readers to fail spectacularly.
So, when readers can tolerate stale data and when entries are either added
or deleted, without in-place modification, it is very easy to use RCU!
Example 2: Handling In-Place Updates
------------------------------------
The system-call auditing code does not update auditing rules in place.
However, if it did, reader-writer-locked code to do so might look as
follows (presumably, the field_count is only permitted to decrease,
otherwise, the added fields would need to be filled in):
otherwise, the added fields would need to be filled in)::
static inline int audit_upd_rule(struct audit_rule *rule,
struct list_head *list,
......@@ -187,7 +189,7 @@ otherwise, the added fields would need to be filled in):
The RCU version creates a copy, updates the copy, then replaces the old
entry with the newly updated entry. This sequence of actions, allowing
concurrent reads while doing a copy to perform an update, is what gives
RCU ("read-copy update") its name. The RCU code is as follows:
RCU ("read-copy update") its name. The RCU code is as follows::
static inline int audit_upd_rule(struct audit_rule *rule,
struct list_head *list,
......@@ -216,8 +218,8 @@ RCU ("read-copy update") its name. The RCU code is as follows:
Again, this assumes that the caller holds audit_netlink_sem. Normally,
the reader-writer lock would become a spinlock in this sort of code.
Example 3: Eliminating Stale Data
---------------------------------
The auditing examples above tolerate stale data, as do most algorithms
that are tracking external state. Because there is a delay from the
......@@ -231,13 +233,16 @@ per-entry spinlock, and, if the "deleted" flag is set, pretends that the
entry does not exist. For this to be helpful, the search function must
return holding the per-entry spinlock, as ipc_lock() does in fact do.
Quick Quiz: Why does the search function need to return holding the
per-entry lock for this deleted-flag technique to be helpful?
Quick Quiz:
Why does the search function need to return holding the per-entry lock for
this deleted-flag technique to be helpful?
:ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz <answer_quick_quiz_list>`
If the system-call audit module were to ever need to reject stale data,
one way to accomplish this would be to add a "deleted" flag and a "lock"
spinlock to the audit_entry structure, and modify audit_filter_task()
as follows:
as follows::
static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
......@@ -268,7 +273,7 @@ audit_upd_rule() would need additional memory barriers to ensure
that the list_add_rcu() was really executed before the list_del_rcu().
The audit_del_rule() function would need to set the "deleted"
flag under the spinlock as follows:
flag under the spinlock as follows::
static inline int audit_del_rule(struct audit_rule *rule,
struct list_head *list)
......@@ -290,8 +295,8 @@ flag under the spinlock as follows:
return -EFAULT; /* No matching rule */
}
Summary
-------
Read-mostly list-based data structures that can tolerate stale data are
the most amenable to use of RCU. The simplest case is where entries are
......@@ -302,8 +307,9 @@ If stale data cannot be tolerated, then a "deleted" flag may be used
in conjunction with a per-entry spinlock in order to allow the search
function to reject newly deleted data.
.. _answer_quick_quiz_list:
Answer to Quick Quiz
Answer to Quick Quiz:
Why does the search function need to return holding the per-entry
lock for this deleted-flag technique to be helpful?
......
.. _rcu_doc:
RCU Concepts
============
The basic idea behind RCU (read-copy update) is to split destructive
operations into two parts, one that prevents anyone from seeing the data
item being destroyed, and one that actually carries out the destruction.
A "grace period" must elapse between the two parts, and this grace period
must be long enough that any readers accessing the item being deleted have
since dropped their references. For example, an RCU-protected deletion
from a linked list would first remove the item from the list, wait for
a grace period to elapse, then free the element. See the
Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst file for more information on using RCU with
linked lists.
Frequently Asked Questions
--------------------------
- Why would anyone want to use RCU?
The advantage of RCU's two-part approach is that RCU readers need
not acquire any locks, perform any atomic instructions, write to
shared memory, or (on CPUs other than Alpha) execute any memory
barriers. The fact that these operations are quite expensive
on modern CPUs is what gives RCU its performance advantages
in read-mostly situations. The fact that RCU readers need not
acquire locks can also greatly simplify deadlock-avoidance code.
- How can the updater tell when a grace period has completed
if the RCU readers give no indication when they are done?
Just as with spinlocks, RCU readers are not permitted to
block, switch to user-mode execution, or enter the idle loop.
Therefore, as soon as a CPU is seen passing through any of these
three states, we know that that CPU has exited any previous RCU
read-side critical sections. So, if we remove an item from a
linked list, and then wait until all CPUs have switched context,
executed in user mode, or executed in the idle loop, we can
safely free up that item.
Preemptible variants of RCU (CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU) get the
same effect, but require that the readers manipulate CPU-local
counters. These counters allow limited types of blocking within
RCU read-side critical sections. SRCU also uses CPU-local
counters, and permits general blocking within RCU read-side
critical sections. These variants of RCU detect grace periods
by sampling these counters.
- If I am running on a uniprocessor kernel, which can only do one
thing at a time, why should I wait for a grace period?
See the Documentation/RCU/UP.rst file for more information.
- How can I see where RCU is currently used in the Linux kernel?
Search for "rcu_read_lock", "rcu_read_unlock", "call_rcu",
"rcu_read_lock_bh", "rcu_read_unlock_bh", "srcu_read_lock",
"srcu_read_unlock", "synchronize_rcu", "synchronize_net",
"synchronize_srcu", and the other RCU primitives. Or grab one
of the cscope databases from:
(http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/linuxusage/rculocktab.html).
- What guidelines should I follow when writing code that uses RCU?
See the checklist.txt file in this directory.
- Why the name "RCU"?
"RCU" stands for "read-copy update". The file Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst
has more information on where this name came from, search for
"read-copy update" to find it.
- I hear that RCU is patented? What is with that?
Yes, it is. There are several known patents related to RCU,
search for the string "Patent" in RTFP.txt to find them.
Of these, one was allowed to lapse by the assignee, and the
others have been contributed to the Linux kernel under GPL.
There are now also LGPL implementations of user-level RCU
available (http://liburcu.org/).
- I hear that RCU needs work in order to support realtime kernels?
Realtime-friendly RCU can be enabled via the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
kernel configuration parameter.
- Where can I find more information on RCU?
See the RTFP.txt file in this directory.
Or point your browser at (http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/).
RCU Concepts
The basic idea behind RCU (read-copy update) is to split destructive
operations into two parts, one that prevents anyone from seeing the data
item being destroyed, and one that actually carries out the destruction.
A "grace period" must elapse between the two parts, and this grace period
must be long enough that any readers accessing the item being deleted have
since dropped their references. For example, an RCU-protected deletion
from a linked list would first remove the item from the list, wait for
a grace period to elapse, then free the element. See the listRCU.txt
file for more information on using RCU with linked lists.
Frequently Asked Questions
o Why would anyone want to use RCU?
The advantage of RCU's two-part approach is that RCU readers need
not acquire any locks, perform any atomic instructions, write to
shared memory, or (on CPUs other than Alpha) execute any memory
barriers. The fact that these operations are quite expensive
on modern CPUs is what gives RCU its performance advantages
in read-mostly situations. The fact that RCU readers need not
acquire locks can also greatly simplify deadlock-avoidance code.
o How can the updater tell when a grace period has completed
if the RCU readers give no indication when they are done?
Just as with spinlocks, RCU readers are not permitted to
block, switch to user-mode execution, or enter the idle loop.
Therefore, as soon as a CPU is seen passing through any of these
three states, we know that that CPU has exited any previous RCU
read-side critical sections. So, if we remove an item from a
linked list, and then wait until all CPUs have switched context,
executed in user mode, or executed in the idle loop, we can
safely free up that item.
Preemptible variants of RCU (CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU) get the
same effect, but require that the readers manipulate CPU-local
counters. These counters allow limited types of blocking within
RCU read-side critical sections. SRCU also uses CPU-local
counters, and permits general blocking within RCU read-side
critical sections. These variants of RCU detect grace periods
by sampling these counters.
o If I am running on a uniprocessor kernel, which can only do one
thing at a time, why should I wait for a grace period?
See the UP.txt file in this directory.
o How can I see where RCU is currently used in the Linux kernel?
Search for "rcu_read_lock", "rcu_read_unlock", "call_rcu",
"rcu_read_lock_bh", "rcu_read_unlock_bh", "srcu_read_lock",
"srcu_read_unlock", "synchronize_rcu", "synchronize_net",
"synchronize_srcu", and the other RCU primitives. Or grab one
of the cscope databases from:
http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/linuxusage/rculocktab.html
o What guidelines should I follow when writing code that uses RCU?
See the checklist.txt file in this directory.
o Why the name "RCU"?
"RCU" stands for "read-copy update". The file listRCU.txt has
more information on where this name came from, search for
"read-copy update" to find it.