Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2023 11:54:31 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "parri.andrea" <parri.andrea@gmail.com>, will <will@kernel.org>,
        "boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, npiggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        dhowells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        "j.alglave" <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget" <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, akiyks <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        dlustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>, joel <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        urezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        quic_neeraju <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        frederic <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus
 test)
Message-ID: <20230113195431.GH4028633@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20220921173109.GA1214281@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <YytfFiMT2Xsdwowf@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <YywXuzZ/922LHfjI@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <114ECED5-FED1-4361-94F7-8D9BC02449B7>
 <Y77rgeg+UgozV/oF@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <07579baee4b84532a76ea8b0b33052bb@huawei.com>
 <20230112215716.GS4028633@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y8GI+dbJ3uadVzSb@rowland.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y8GI+dbJ3uadVzSb@rowland.harvard.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:38:17AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 01:57:16PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > I will risk sharing the intuition behind the rcu-order counting rule.
> > 
> > In the code, an RCU read-side critical section begins with rcu_read_lock()
> > and ends with the matching rcu_read_unlock().  RCU read-side critical
> > section may be nested, in which case RCU cares only about the outermost
> > of the nested set.
> > 
> > An RCU grace period includes at least one moment in time during which
> > each and every process/CPU/task/whatever is not within an RCU read-side
> > critical section.
> 
> Strictly speaking, this is not right.  It should say: For each 
> process/CPU/task/whatever, an RCU grace period includes at least one 
> moment in time during which that process is not within an RCU read-side 
> critical section.  There does not have to be any single moment during 
> which no processes are executing a critical section.
> 
> For example, the following is acceptable:
> 
> CPU 0:               start of synchronize_rcu()......end
> CPU 1:  rcu_lock().....................rcu_unlock()
> CPU 2:                    rcu_lock().......................rcu_unlock()

You are quite right, thank you!  Yes, the time outside of an RCU
read-side critical section for a given process/CPU/task/whatever need
not be simultaneous with any other process/CPU/task/whatever.

							Thanx, Paul