[PATCH] Yet another RCU documentation update

[firefly-linux-kernel-4.4.55.git] / Documentation / RCU / checklist.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
index 8f3fb77c9cd32f2732351c2a78701110d2fc2454..e118a7c1a0928d9aadc5f4cd34d4e110a930a1ee 100644 (file)
--- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
@@ -43,6 +43,10 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
        rcu_read_lock_bh()) in the read-side critical sections,
        and are also an excellent aid to readability.
 
+       As a rough rule of thumb, any dereference of an RCU-protected
+       pointer must be covered by rcu_read_lock() or rcu_read_lock_bh()
+       or by the appropriate update-side lock.
+
 3.     Does the update code tolerate concurrent accesses?
 
        The whole point of RCU is to permit readers to run without
@@ -90,7 +94,11 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 
                The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the various
                "_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such as the
-               list_for_each_entry_rcu().
+               list_for_each_entry_rcu().  Note that it is perfectly
+               legal (if redundant) for update-side code to use
+               rcu_dereference() and the "_rcu()" list-traversal
+               primitives.  This is particularly useful in code
+               that is common to readers and updaters.
 
        b.      If the list macros are being used, the list_add_tail_rcu()
                and list_add_rcu() primitives must be used in order
@@ -150,16 +158,9 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 
        Use of the _rcu() list-traversal primitives outside of an
        RCU read-side critical section causes no harm other than
-       a slight performance degradation on Alpha CPUs and some
-       confusion on the part of people trying to read the code.
-
-       Another way of thinking of this is "If you are holding the
-       lock that prevents the data structure from changing, why do
-       you also need RCU-based protection?"  That said, there may
-       well be situations where use of the _rcu() list-traversal
-       primitives while the update-side lock is held results in
-       simpler and more maintainable code.  The jury is still out
-       on this question.
+       a slight performance degradation on Alpha CPUs.  It can
+       also be quite helpful in reducing code bloat when common
+       code is shared between readers and updaters.
 
 10.    Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section,
        you -must- use the "_rcu()" variants of the list macros.