Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
From:   "Neeraj Upadhyay (AMD)" <neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com>
To:     rcu@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, paulmck@kernel.org, Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH rcu 3/5] doc: Clarify RCU Tasks reader/updater checklist
Date:   Tue, 12 Dec 2023 22:56:51 +0530
Message-Id: <20231212172653.11485-3-neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231212172343.GA11383@neeraj.linux>
References: <20231212172343.GA11383@neeraj.linux>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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

Currently, the reader/updater compatibility rules for the three RCU
Tasks flavors are squished together in a single paragraph, which can
result in confusion.  This commit therefore splits them out into a list,
clearly showing the distinction between these flavors.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231002211936.5948253e@gandalf.local.home/

Reported-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay (AMD) <neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst | 25 ++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
index bd3c58c44bef..c432899aff22 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
@@ -241,15 +241,22 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	srcu_struct.  The rules for the expedited RCU grace-period-wait
 	primitives are the same as for their non-expedited counterparts.
 
-	If the updater uses call_rcu_tasks() or synchronize_rcu_tasks(),
-	then the readers must refrain from executing voluntary
-	context switches, that is, from blocking.  If the updater uses
-	call_rcu_tasks_trace() or synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace(), then
-	the corresponding readers must use rcu_read_lock_trace() and
-	rcu_read_unlock_trace().  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().
+	Similarly, it is necssary to correctly use the RCU Tasks flavors:
+
+	a.	If the updater uses synchronize_rcu_tasks() or
+		call_rcu_tasks(), then the readers must refrain from
+		executing voluntary context switches, that is, from
+		blocking.
+
+	b.	If the updater uses call_rcu_tasks_trace()
+		or synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace(), then the
+		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().
 
 	Mixing things up will result in confusion and broken kernels, and
 	has even resulted in an exploitable security issue.  Therefore,
-- 
2.40.1