diff options
| author | Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> | 2022-11-23 18:23:09 +0900 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> | 2023-01-05 11:27:56 -0800 |
| commit | a75f7b487c2b0c1dde149b82b494f97fd068d014 (patch) | |
| tree | c54133dc4dbf53eefd1891f04913bc15ea76135e /Documentation/RCU | |
| parent | 7a21ddf01af9da0a2d24d6ece0e2ffd60374a945 (diff) | |
| download | lwn-a75f7b487c2b0c1dde149b82b494f97fd068d014.tar.gz lwn-a75f7b487c2b0c1dde149b82b494f97fd068d014.zip | |
docs/RCU/rcubarrier: Adjust 'Answer' parts of QQs as definition-lists
The "Answer" parts of QQs divert from proper format of definition-lists
as described at [1] and are not rendered as such.
Adjust them.
Link: [1] https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#definition-lists
Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/RCU')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst | 9 |
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst index 5a643e5233d5..9fb9ed777355 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst @@ -296,7 +296,8 @@ Quick Quiz #1: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might be required? -Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally +Answer: + Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally implemented for module unloading. Nikita Danilov was using RCU in a filesystem, which resulted in a similar situation at filesystem-unmount time. Dipankar Sarma coded up rcu_barrier() @@ -315,7 +316,8 @@ Quick Quiz #2: Why doesn't line 8 initialize rcu_barrier_cpu_count to zero, thereby avoiding the need for lines 9 and 10? -Answer: Suppose that the on_each_cpu() function shown on line 8 was +Answer: + Suppose that the on_each_cpu() function shown on line 8 was delayed, so that CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executed and the corresponding grace period elapsed, all before CPU 1's rcu_barrier_func() started executing. This would result in @@ -351,7 +353,8 @@ Quick Quiz #3: are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in rcu_barrier() returning prematurely? -Answer: This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last +Answer: + This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last argument, the wait flag, set to "1". This flag is passed through to smp_call_function() and further to smp_call_function_on_cpu(), causing this latter to spin until the cross-CPU invocation of |