Adding upstream version 4.19.249.upstream/4.19.249upstream

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 486 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..49747717d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,486 @@
+Review Checklist for RCU Patches
+
+
+This document contains a checklist for producing and reviewing patches
+that make use of RCU.  Violating any of the rules listed below will
+result in the same sorts of problems that leaving out a locking primitive
+would cause.  This list is based on experiences reviewing such patches
+over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
+
+0.	Is RCU being applied to a read-mostly situation?  If the data
+	structure is updated more than about 10% of the time, then you
+	should strongly consider some other approach, unless detailed
+	performance measurements show that RCU is nonetheless the right
+	tool for the job.  Yes, RCU does reduce read-side overhead by
+	increasing write-side overhead, which is exactly why normal uses
+	of RCU will do much more reading than updating.
+
+	Another exception is where performance is not an issue, and RCU
+	provides a simpler implementation.  An example of this situation
+	is the dynamic NMI code in the Linux 2.6 kernel, at least on
+	architectures where NMIs are rare.
+
+	Yet another exception is where the low real-time latency of RCU's
+	read-side primitives is critically important.
+
+	One final exception is where RCU readers are used to prevent
+	the ABA problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABA_problem)
+	for lockless updates.  This does result in the mildly
+	counter-intuitive situation where rcu_read_lock() and
+	rcu_read_unlock() are used to protect updates, however, this
+	approach provides the same potential simplifications that garbage
+	collectors do.
+
+1.	Does the update code have proper mutual exclusion?
+
+	RCU does allow -readers- to run (almost) naked, but -writers- must
+	still use some sort of mutual exclusion, such as:
+
+	a.	locking,
+	b.	atomic operations, or
+	c.	restricting updates to a single task.
+
+	If you choose #b, be prepared to describe how you have handled
+	memory barriers on weakly ordered machines (pretty much all of
+	them -- even x86 allows later loads to be reordered to precede
+	earlier stores), and be prepared to explain why this added
+	complexity is worthwhile.  If you choose #c, be prepared to
+	explain how this single task does not become a major bottleneck on
+	big multiprocessor machines (for example, if the task is updating
+	information relating to itself that other tasks can read, there
+	by definition can be no bottleneck).  Note that the definition
+	of "large" has changed significantly:  Eight CPUs was "large"
+	in the year 2000, but a hundred CPUs was unremarkable in 2017.
+
+2.	Do the RCU read-side critical sections make proper use of
+	rcu_read_lock() and friends?  These primitives are needed
+	to prevent grace periods from ending prematurely, which
+	could result in data being unceremoniously freed out from
+	under your read-side code, which can greatly increase the
+	actuarial risk of your kernel.
+
+	As a rough rule of thumb, any dereference of an RCU-protected
+	pointer must be covered by rcu_read_lock(), rcu_read_lock_bh(),
+	rcu_read_lock_sched(), or by the appropriate update-side lock.
+	Disabling of preemption can serve as rcu_read_lock_sched(), but
+	is less readable.
+
+	Letting RCU-protected pointers "leak" out of an RCU read-side
+	critical section is every bid as bad as letting them leak out
+	from under a lock.  Unless, of course, you have arranged some
+	other means of protection, such as a lock or a reference count
+	-before- letting them out of the RCU read-side critical section.
+
+3.	Does the update code tolerate concurrent accesses?
+
+	The whole point of RCU is to permit readers to run without
+	any locks or atomic operations.  This means that readers will
+	be running while updates are in progress.  There are a number
+	of ways to handle this concurrency, depending on the situation:
+
+	a.	Use the RCU variants of the list and hlist update
+		primitives to add, remove, and replace elements on
+		an RCU-protected list.	Alternatively, use the other
+		RCU-protected data structures that have been added to
+		the Linux kernel.
+
+		This is almost always the best approach.
+
+	b.	Proceed as in (a) above, but also maintain per-element
+		locks (that are acquired by both readers and writers)
+		that guard per-element state.  Of course, fields that
+		the readers refrain from accessing can be guarded by
+		some other lock acquired only by updaters, if desired.
+
+		This works quite well, also.
+
+	c.	Make updates appear atomic to readers.	For example,
+		pointer updates to properly aligned fields will
+		appear atomic, as will individual atomic primitives.
+		Sequences of operations performed under a lock will -not-
+		appear to be atomic to RCU readers, nor will sequences
+		of multiple atomic primitives.
+
+		This can work, but is starting to get a bit tricky.
+
+	d.	Carefully order the updates and the reads so that
+		readers see valid data at all phases of the update.
+		This is often more difficult than it sounds, especially
+		given modern CPUs' tendency to reorder memory references.
+		One must usually liberally sprinkle memory barriers
+		(smp_wmb(), smp_rmb(), smp_mb()) through the code,
+		making it difficult to understand and to test.
+
+		It is usually better to group the changing data into
+		a separate structure, so that the change may be made
+		to appear atomic by updating a pointer to reference
+		a new structure containing updated values.
+
+4.	Weakly ordered CPUs pose special challenges.  Almost all CPUs
+	are weakly ordered -- even x86 CPUs allow later loads to be
+	reordered to precede earlier stores.  RCU code must take all of
+	the following measures to prevent memory-corruption problems:
+
+	a.	Readers must maintain proper ordering of their memory
+		accesses.  The rcu_dereference() primitive ensures that
+		the CPU picks up the pointer before it picks up the data
+		that the pointer points to.  This really is necessary
+		on Alpha CPUs.	If you don't believe me, see:
+
+			http://www.openvms.compaq.com/wizard/wiz_2637.html
+
+		The rcu_dereference() primitive is also an excellent
+		documentation aid, letting the person reading the
+		code know exactly which pointers are protected by RCU.
+		Please note that compilers can also reorder code, and
+		they are becoming increasingly aggressive about doing
+		just that.  The rcu_dereference() primitive therefore also
+		prevents destructive compiler optimizations.  However,
+		with a bit of devious creativity, it is possible to
+		mishandle the return value from rcu_dereference().
+		Please see rcu_dereference.txt in this directory for
+		more information.
+
+		The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the
+		various "_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such
+		as the 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.  However, lockdep
+		will complain if you access rcu_dereference() outside
+		of an RCU read-side critical section.  See lockdep.txt
+		to learn what to do about this.
+
+		Of course, neither rcu_dereference() nor the "_rcu()"
+		list-traversal primitives can substitute for a good
+		concurrency design coordinating among multiple updaters.
+
+	b.	If the list macros are being used, the list_add_tail_rcu()
+		and list_add_rcu() primitives must be used in order
+		to prevent weakly ordered machines from misordering
+		structure initialization and pointer planting.
+		Similarly, if the hlist macros are being used, the
+		hlist_add_head_rcu() primitive is required.
+
+	c.	If the list macros are being used, the list_del_rcu()
+		primitive must be used to keep list_del()'s pointer
+		poisoning from inflicting toxic effects on concurrent
+		readers.  Similarly, if the hlist macros are being used,
+		the hlist_del_rcu() primitive is required.
+
+		The list_replace_rcu() and hlist_replace_rcu() primitives
+		may be used to replace an old structure with a new one
+		in their respective types of RCU-protected lists.
+
+	d.	Rules similar to (4b) and (4c) apply to the "hlist_nulls"
+		type of RCU-protected linked lists.
+
+	e.	Updates must ensure that initialization of a given
+		structure happens before pointers to that structure are
+		publicized.  Use the rcu_assign_pointer() primitive
+		when publicizing a pointer to a structure that can
+		be traversed by an RCU read-side critical section.
+
+5.	If call_rcu(), or a related primitive such as call_rcu_bh(),
+	call_rcu_sched(), or call_srcu() is used, the callback function
+	will be called from softirq context.  In particular, it cannot
+	block.
+
+6.	Since synchronize_rcu() can block, it cannot be called from
+	any sort of irq context.  The same rule applies for
+	synchronize_rcu_bh(), synchronize_sched(), synchronize_srcu(),
+	synchronize_rcu_expedited(), synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited(),
+	synchronize_sched_expedite(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited().
+
+	The expedited forms of these primitives have the same semantics
+	as the non-expedited forms, but expediting is both expensive and
+	(with the exception of synchronize_srcu_expedited()) unfriendly
+	to real-time workloads.  Use of the expedited primitives should
+	be restricted to rare configuration-change operations that would
+	not normally be undertaken while a real-time workload is running.
+	However, real-time workloads can use rcupdate.rcu_normal kernel
+	boot parameter to completely disable expedited grace periods,
+	though this might have performance implications.
+
+	In particular, if you find yourself invoking one of the expedited
+	primitives repeatedly in a loop, please do everyone a favor:
+	Restructure your code so that it batches the updates, allowing
+	a single non-expedited primitive to cover the entire batch.
+	This will very likely be faster than the loop containing the
+	expedited primitive, and will be much much easier on the rest
+	of the system, especially to real-time workloads running on
+	the rest of the system.
+
+7.	If the updater uses call_rcu() or synchronize_rcu(), then the
+	corresponding readers must use rcu_read_lock() and
+	rcu_read_unlock().  If the updater uses call_rcu_bh() or
+	synchronize_rcu_bh(), then the corresponding readers must
+	use rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh().  If the
+	updater uses call_rcu_sched() or synchronize_sched(), then
+	the corresponding readers must disable preemption, possibly
+	by calling rcu_read_lock_sched() and rcu_read_unlock_sched().
+	If the updater uses synchronize_srcu() or call_srcu(), then
+	the corresponding readers must use srcu_read_lock() and
+	srcu_read_unlock(), and with the same srcu_struct.  The rules for
+	the expedited primitives are the same as for their non-expedited
+	counterparts.  Mixing things up will result in confusion and
+	broken kernels.
+
+	One exception to this rule: rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
+	may be substituted for rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh()
+	in cases where local bottom halves are already known to be
+	disabled, for example, in irq or softirq context.  Commenting
+	such cases is a must, of course!  And the jury is still out on
+	whether the increased speed is worth it.
+
+8.	Although synchronize_rcu() is slower than is call_rcu(), it
+	usually results in simpler code.  So, unless update performance is
+	critically important, the updaters cannot block, or the latency of
+	synchronize_rcu() is visible from userspace, synchronize_rcu()
+	should be used in preference to call_rcu().  Furthermore,
+	kfree_rcu() usually results in even simpler code than does
+	synchronize_rcu() without synchronize_rcu()'s multi-millisecond
+	latency.  So please take advantage of kfree_rcu()'s "fire and
+	forget" memory-freeing capabilities where it applies.
+
+	An especially important property of the synchronize_rcu()
+	primitive is that it automatically self-limits: if grace periods
+	are delayed for whatever reason, then the synchronize_rcu()
+	primitive will correspondingly delay updates.  In contrast,
+	code using call_rcu() should explicitly limit update rate in
+	cases where grace periods are delayed, as failing to do so can
+	result in excessive realtime latencies or even OOM conditions.
+
+	Ways of gaining this self-limiting property when using call_rcu()
+	include:
+
+	a.	Keeping a count of the number of data-structure elements
+		used by the RCU-protected data structure, including
+		those waiting for a grace period to elapse.  Enforce a
+		limit on this number, stalling updates as needed to allow
+		previously deferred frees to complete.	Alternatively,
+		limit only the number awaiting deferred free rather than
+		the total number of elements.
+
+		One way to stall the updates is to acquire the update-side
+		mutex.	(Don't try this with a spinlock -- other CPUs
+		spinning on the lock could prevent the grace period
+		from ever ending.)  Another way to stall the updates
+		is for the updates to use a wrapper function around
+		the memory allocator, so that this wrapper function
+		simulates OOM when there is too much memory awaiting an
+		RCU grace period.  There are of course many other
+		variations on this theme.
+
+	b.	Limiting update rate.  For example, if updates occur only
+		once per hour, then no explicit rate limiting is
+		required, unless your system is already badly broken.
+		Older versions of the dcache subsystem take this approach,
+		guarding updates with a global lock, limiting their rate.
+
+	c.	Trusted update -- if updates can only be done manually by
+		superuser or some other trusted user, then it might not
+		be necessary to automatically limit them.  The theory
+		here is that superuser already has lots of ways to crash
+		the machine.
+
+	d.	Use call_rcu_bh() rather than call_rcu(), in order to take
+		advantage of call_rcu_bh()'s faster grace periods.  (This
+		is only a partial solution, though.)
+
+	e.	Periodically invoke synchronize_rcu(), permitting a limited
+		number of updates per grace period.
+
+	The same cautions apply to call_rcu_bh(), call_rcu_sched(),
+	call_srcu(), and kfree_rcu().
+
+	Note that although these primitives do take action to avoid memory
+	exhaustion when any given CPU has too many callbacks, a determined
+	user could still exhaust memory.  This is especially the case
+	if a system with a large number of CPUs has been configured to
+	offload all of its RCU callbacks onto a single CPU, or if the
+	system has relatively little free memory.
+
+9.	All RCU list-traversal primitives, which include
+	rcu_dereference(), list_for_each_entry_rcu(), and
+	list_for_each_safe_rcu(), must be either within an RCU read-side
+	critical section or must be protected by appropriate update-side
+	locks.	RCU read-side critical sections are delimited by
+	rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), or by similar primitives
+	such as rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh(), in which
+	case the matching rcu_dereference() primitive must be used in
+	order to keep lockdep happy, in this case, rcu_dereference_bh().
+
+	The reason that it is permissible to use RCU list-traversal
+	primitives when the update-side lock is held is that doing so
+	can be quite helpful in reducing code bloat when common code is
+	shared between readers and updaters.  Additional primitives
+	are provided for this case, as discussed in lockdep.txt.
+
+10.	Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section,
+	and you don't hold the appropriate update-side lock, you -must-
+	use the "_rcu()" variants of the list macros.  Failing to do so
+	will break Alpha, cause aggressive compilers to generate bad code,
+	and confuse people trying to read your code.
+
+11.	Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until
+	all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side
+	critical sections complete.  It does -not- necessarily guarantee
+	that all currently running interrupts, NMIs, preempt_disable()
+	code, or idle loops will complete.  Therefore, if your
+	read-side critical sections are protected by something other
+	than rcu_read_lock(), do -not- use synchronize_rcu().
+
+	Similarly, disabling preemption is not an acceptable substitute
+	for rcu_read_lock().  Code that attempts to use preemption
+	disabling where it should be using rcu_read_lock() will break
+	in CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernel builds.
+
+	If you want to wait for interrupt handlers, NMI handlers, and
+	code under the influence of preempt_disable(), you instead
+	need to use synchronize_irq() or synchronize_sched().
+
+	This same limitation also applies to synchronize_rcu_bh()
+	and synchronize_srcu(), as well as to the asynchronous and
+	expedited forms of the three primitives, namely call_rcu(),
+	call_rcu_bh(), call_srcu(), synchronize_rcu_expedited(),
+	synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited().
+
+12.	Any lock acquired by an RCU callback must be acquired elsewhere
+	with softirq disabled, e.g., via spin_lock_irqsave(),
+	spin_lock_bh(), etc.  Failing to disable irq on a given
+	acquisition of that lock will result in deadlock as soon as
+	the RCU softirq handler happens to run your RCU callback while
+	interrupting that acquisition's critical section.
+
+13.	RCU callbacks can be and are executed in parallel.  In many cases,
+	the callback code simply wrappers around kfree(), so that this
+	is not an issue (or, more accurately, to the extent that it is
+	an issue, the memory-allocator locking handles it).  However,
+	if the callbacks do manipulate a shared data structure, they
+	must use whatever locking or other synchronization is required
+	to safely access and/or modify that data structure.
+
+	RCU callbacks are -usually- executed on the same CPU that executed
+	the corresponding call_rcu(), call_rcu_bh(), or call_rcu_sched(),
+	but are by -no- means guaranteed to be.  For example, if a given
+	CPU goes offline while having an RCU callback pending, then that
+	RCU callback will execute on some surviving CPU.  (If this was
+	not the case, a self-spawning RCU callback would prevent the
+	victim CPU from ever going offline.)
+
+14.	Unlike other forms of RCU, it -is- permissible to block in an
+	SRCU read-side critical section (demarked by srcu_read_lock()
+	and srcu_read_unlock()), hence the "SRCU": "sleepable RCU".
+	Please note that if you don't need to sleep in read-side critical
+	sections, you should be using RCU rather than SRCU, because RCU
+	is almost always faster and easier to use than is SRCU.
+
+	Also unlike other forms of RCU, explicit initialization and
+	cleanup is required either at build time via DEFINE_SRCU()
+	or DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU() or at runtime via init_srcu_struct()
+	and cleanup_srcu_struct().  These last two are passed a
+	"struct srcu_struct" that defines the scope of a given
+	SRCU domain.  Once initialized, the srcu_struct is passed
+	to srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock() synchronize_srcu(),
+	synchronize_srcu_expedited(), and call_srcu().	A given
+	synchronize_srcu() waits only for SRCU read-side critical
+	sections governed by srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock()
+	calls that have been passed the same srcu_struct.  This property
+	is what makes sleeping read-side critical sections tolerable --
+	a given subsystem delays only its own updates, not those of other
+	subsystems using SRCU.	Therefore, SRCU is less prone to OOM the
+	system than RCU would be if RCU's read-side critical sections
+	were permitted to sleep.
+
+	The ability to sleep in read-side critical sections does not
+	come for free.	First, corresponding srcu_read_lock() and
+	srcu_read_unlock() calls must be passed the same srcu_struct.
+	Second, grace-period-detection overhead is amortized only
+	over those updates sharing a given srcu_struct, rather than
+	being globally amortized as they are for other forms of RCU.
+	Therefore, SRCU should be used in preference to rw_semaphore
+	only in extremely read-intensive situations, or in situations
+	requiring SRCU's read-side deadlock immunity or low read-side
+	realtime latency.  You should also consider percpu_rw_semaphore
+	when you need lightweight readers.
+
+	SRCU's expedited primitive (synchronize_srcu_expedited())
+	never sends IPIs to other CPUs, so it is easier on
+	real-time workloads than is synchronize_rcu_expedited(),
+	synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited() or synchronize_sched_expedited().
+
+	Note that rcu_dereference() and rcu_assign_pointer() relate to
+	SRCU just as they do to other forms of RCU.
+
+15.	The whole point of call_rcu(), synchronize_rcu(), and friends
+	is to wait until all pre-existing readers have finished before
+	carrying out some otherwise-destructive operation.  It is
+	therefore critically important to -first- remove any path
+	that readers can follow that could be affected by the
+	destructive operation, and -only- -then- invoke call_rcu(),
+	synchronize_rcu(), or friends.
+
+	Because these primitives only wait for pre-existing readers, it
+	is the caller's responsibility to guarantee that any subsequent
+	readers will execute safely.
+
+16.	The various RCU read-side primitives do -not- necessarily contain
+	memory barriers.  You should therefore plan for the CPU
+	and the compiler to freely reorder code into and out of RCU
+	read-side critical sections.  It is the responsibility of the
+	RCU update-side primitives to deal with this.
+
+17.	Use CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD, and the
+	__rcu sparse checks to validate your RCU code.	These can help
+	find problems as follows:
+
+	CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING: check that accesses to RCU-protected data
+		structures are carried out under the proper RCU
+		read-side critical section, while holding the right
+		combination of locks, or whatever other conditions
+		are appropriate.
+
+	CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD: check that you don't pass the
+		same object to call_rcu() (or friends) before an RCU
+		grace period has elapsed since the last time that you
+		passed that same object to call_rcu() (or friends).
+
+	__rcu sparse checks: tag the pointer to the RCU-protected data
+		structure with __rcu, and sparse will warn you if you
+		access that pointer without the services of one of the
+		variants of rcu_dereference().
+
+	These debugging aids can help you find problems that are
+	otherwise extremely difficult to spot.
+
+18.	If you register a callback using call_rcu(), call_rcu_bh(),
+	call_rcu_sched(), or call_srcu(), and pass in a function defined
+	within a loadable module, then it in necessary to wait for
+	all pending callbacks to be invoked after the last invocation
+	and before unloading that module.  Note that it is absolutely
+	-not- sufficient to wait for a grace period!  The current (say)
+	synchronize_rcu() implementation waits only for all previous
+	callbacks registered on the CPU that synchronize_rcu() is running
+	on, but it is -not- guaranteed to wait for callbacks registered
+	on other CPUs.
+
+	You instead need to use one of the barrier functions:
+
+	o	call_rcu() -> rcu_barrier()
+	o	call_rcu_bh() -> rcu_barrier_bh()
+	o	call_rcu_sched() -> rcu_barrier_sched()
+	o	call_srcu() -> srcu_barrier()
+
+	However, these barrier functions are absolutely -not- guaranteed
+	to wait for a grace period.  In fact, if there are no call_rcu()
+	callbacks waiting anywhere in the system, rcu_barrier() is within
+	its rights to return immediately.
+
+	So if you need to wait for both an RCU grace period and for
+	all pre-existing call_rcu() callbacks, you will need to execute
+	both rcu_barrier() and synchronize_rcu(), if necessary, using
+	something like workqueues to to execute them concurrently.
+
+	See rcubarrier.txt for more information.