Adding upstream version 6.1.76.upstream/6.1.76

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

1 files changed, 1451 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6805ae6e8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,1451 @@
+.. _kernel_hacking_lock:
+
+===========================
+Unreliable Guide To Locking
+===========================
+
+:Author: Rusty Russell
+
+Introduction
+============
+
+Welcome, to Rusty's Remarkably Unreliable Guide to Kernel Locking
+issues. This document describes the locking systems in the Linux Kernel
+in 2.6.
+
+With the wide availability of HyperThreading, and preemption in the
+Linux Kernel, everyone hacking on the kernel needs to know the
+fundamentals of concurrency and locking for SMP.
+
+The Problem With Concurrency
+============================
+
+(Skip this if you know what a Race Condition is).
+
+In a normal program, you can increment a counter like so:
+
+::
+
+          very_important_count++;
+
+
+This is what they would expect to happen:
+
+
+.. table:: Expected Results
+
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  | Instance 1                         | Instance 2                         |
+  +====================================+====================================+
+  | read very_important_count (5)      |                                    |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  | add 1 (6)                          |                                    |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  | write very_important_count (6)     |                                    |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  |                                    | read very_important_count (6)      |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  |                                    | add 1 (7)                          |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  |                                    | write very_important_count (7)     |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+
+This is what might happen:
+
+.. table:: Possible Results
+
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  | Instance 1                         | Instance 2                         |
+  +====================================+====================================+
+  | read very_important_count (5)      |                                    |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  |                                    | read very_important_count (5)      |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  | add 1 (6)                          |                                    |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  |                                    | add 1 (6)                          |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  | write very_important_count (6)     |                                    |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  |                                    | write very_important_count (6)     |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+
+
+Race Conditions and Critical Regions
+------------------------------------
+
+This overlap, where the result depends on the relative timing of
+multiple tasks, is called a race condition. The piece of code containing
+the concurrency issue is called a critical region. And especially since
+Linux starting running on SMP machines, they became one of the major
+issues in kernel design and implementation.
+
+Preemption can have the same effect, even if there is only one CPU: by
+preempting one task during the critical region, we have exactly the same
+race condition. In this case the thread which preempts might run the
+critical region itself.
+
+The solution is to recognize when these simultaneous accesses occur, and
+use locks to make sure that only one instance can enter the critical
+region at any time. There are many friendly primitives in the Linux
+kernel to help you do this. And then there are the unfriendly
+primitives, but I'll pretend they don't exist.
+
+Locking in the Linux Kernel
+===========================
+
+If I could give you one piece of advice on locking: **keep it simple**.
+
+Be reluctant to introduce new locks.
+
+Two Main Types of Kernel Locks: Spinlocks and Mutexes
+-----------------------------------------------------
+
+There are two main types of kernel locks. The fundamental type is the
+spinlock (``include/asm/spinlock.h``), which is a very simple
+single-holder lock: if you can't get the spinlock, you keep trying
+(spinning) until you can. Spinlocks are very small and fast, and can be
+used anywhere.
+
+The second type is a mutex (``include/linux/mutex.h``): it is like a
+spinlock, but you may block holding a mutex. If you can't lock a mutex,
+your task will suspend itself, and be woken up when the mutex is
+released. This means the CPU can do something else while you are
+waiting. There are many cases when you simply can't sleep (see
+`What Functions Are Safe To Call From Interrupts?`_),
+and so have to use a spinlock instead.
+
+Neither type of lock is recursive: see
+`Deadlock: Simple and Advanced`_.
+
+Locks and Uniprocessor Kernels
+------------------------------
+
+For kernels compiled without ``CONFIG_SMP``, and without
+``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` spinlocks do not exist at all. This is an excellent
+design decision: when no-one else can run at the same time, there is no
+reason to have a lock.
+
+If the kernel is compiled without ``CONFIG_SMP``, but ``CONFIG_PREEMPT``
+is set, then spinlocks simply disable preemption, which is sufficient to
+prevent any races. For most purposes, we can think of preemption as
+equivalent to SMP, and not worry about it separately.
+
+You should always test your locking code with ``CONFIG_SMP`` and
+``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` enabled, even if you don't have an SMP test box,
+because it will still catch some kinds of locking bugs.
+
+Mutexes still exist, because they are required for synchronization
+between user contexts, as we will see below.
+
+Locking Only In User Context
+----------------------------
+
+If you have a data structure which is only ever accessed from user
+context, then you can use a simple mutex (``include/linux/mutex.h``) to
+protect it. This is the most trivial case: you initialize the mutex.
+Then you can call mutex_lock_interruptible() to grab the
+mutex, and mutex_unlock() to release it. There is also a
+mutex_lock(), which should be avoided, because it will
+not return if a signal is received.
+
+Example: ``net/netfilter/nf_sockopt.c`` allows registration of new
+setsockopt() and getsockopt() calls, with
+nf_register_sockopt(). Registration and de-registration
+are only done on module load and unload (and boot time, where there is
+no concurrency), and the list of registrations is only consulted for an
+unknown setsockopt() or getsockopt() system
+call. The ``nf_sockopt_mutex`` is perfect to protect this, especially
+since the setsockopt and getsockopt calls may well sleep.
+
+Locking Between User Context and Softirqs
+-----------------------------------------
+
+If a softirq shares data with user context, you have two problems.
+Firstly, the current user context can be interrupted by a softirq, and
+secondly, the critical region could be entered from another CPU. This is
+where spin_lock_bh() (``include/linux/spinlock.h``) is
+used. It disables softirqs on that CPU, then grabs the lock.
+spin_unlock_bh() does the reverse. (The '_bh' suffix is
+a historical reference to "Bottom Halves", the old name for software
+interrupts. It should really be called spin_lock_softirq()' in a
+perfect world).
+
+Note that you can also use spin_lock_irq() or
+spin_lock_irqsave() here, which stop hardware interrupts
+as well: see `Hard IRQ Context`_.
+
+This works perfectly for UP as well: the spin lock vanishes, and this
+macro simply becomes local_bh_disable()
+(``include/linux/interrupt.h``), which protects you from the softirq
+being run.
+
+Locking Between User Context and Tasklets
+-----------------------------------------
+
+This is exactly the same as above, because tasklets are actually run
+from a softirq.
+
+Locking Between User Context and Timers
+---------------------------------------
+
+This, too, is exactly the same as above, because timers are actually run
+from a softirq. From a locking point of view, tasklets and timers are
+identical.
+
+Locking Between Tasklets/Timers
+-------------------------------
+
+Sometimes a tasklet or timer might want to share data with another
+tasklet or timer.
+
+The Same Tasklet/Timer
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Since a tasklet is never run on two CPUs at once, you don't need to
+worry about your tasklet being reentrant (running twice at once), even
+on SMP.
+
+Different Tasklets/Timers
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+If another tasklet/timer wants to share data with your tasklet or timer
+, you will both need to use spin_lock() and
+spin_unlock() calls. spin_lock_bh() is
+unnecessary here, as you are already in a tasklet, and none will be run
+on the same CPU.
+
+Locking Between Softirqs
+------------------------
+
+Often a softirq might want to share data with itself or a tasklet/timer.
+
+The Same Softirq
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The same softirq can run on the other CPUs: you can use a per-CPU array
+(see `Per-CPU Data`_) for better performance. If you're
+going so far as to use a softirq, you probably care about scalable
+performance enough to justify the extra complexity.
+
+You'll need to use spin_lock() and
+spin_unlock() for shared data.
+
+Different Softirqs
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+You'll need to use spin_lock() and
+spin_unlock() for shared data, whether it be a timer,
+tasklet, different softirq or the same or another softirq: any of them
+could be running on a different CPU.
+
+Hard IRQ Context
+================
+
+Hardware interrupts usually communicate with a tasklet or softirq.
+Frequently this involves putting work in a queue, which the softirq will
+take out.
+
+Locking Between Hard IRQ and Softirqs/Tasklets
+----------------------------------------------
+
+If a hardware irq handler shares data with a softirq, you have two
+concerns. Firstly, the softirq processing can be interrupted by a
+hardware interrupt, and secondly, the critical region could be entered
+by a hardware interrupt on another CPU. This is where
+spin_lock_irq() is used. It is defined to disable
+interrupts on that cpu, then grab the lock.
+spin_unlock_irq() does the reverse.
+
+The irq handler does not need to use spin_lock_irq(), because
+the softirq cannot run while the irq handler is running: it can use
+spin_lock(), which is slightly faster. The only exception
+would be if a different hardware irq handler uses the same lock:
+spin_lock_irq() will stop that from interrupting us.
+
+This works perfectly for UP as well: the spin lock vanishes, and this
+macro simply becomes local_irq_disable()
+(``include/asm/smp.h``), which protects you from the softirq/tasklet/BH
+being run.
+
+spin_lock_irqsave() (``include/linux/spinlock.h``) is a
+variant which saves whether interrupts were on or off in a flags word,
+which is passed to spin_unlock_irqrestore(). This means
+that the same code can be used inside an hard irq handler (where
+interrupts are already off) and in softirqs (where the irq disabling is
+required).
+
+Note that softirqs (and hence tasklets and timers) are run on return
+from hardware interrupts, so spin_lock_irq() also stops
+these. In that sense, spin_lock_irqsave() is the most
+general and powerful locking function.
+
+Locking Between Two Hard IRQ Handlers
+-------------------------------------
+
+It is rare to have to share data between two IRQ handlers, but if you
+do, spin_lock_irqsave() should be used: it is
+architecture-specific whether all interrupts are disabled inside irq
+handlers themselves.
+
+Cheat Sheet For Locking
+=======================
+
+Pete Zaitcev gives the following summary:
+
+-  If you are in a process context (any syscall) and want to lock other
+   process out, use a mutex. You can take a mutex and sleep
+   (``copy_from_user()`` or ``kmalloc(x,GFP_KERNEL)``).
+
+-  Otherwise (== data can be touched in an interrupt), use
+   spin_lock_irqsave() and
+   spin_unlock_irqrestore().
+
+-  Avoid holding spinlock for more than 5 lines of code and across any
+   function call (except accessors like readb()).
+
+Table of Minimum Requirements
+-----------------------------
+
+The following table lists the **minimum** locking requirements between
+various contexts. In some cases, the same context can only be running on
+one CPU at a time, so no locking is required for that context (eg. a
+particular thread can only run on one CPU at a time, but if it needs
+shares data with another thread, locking is required).
+
+Remember the advice above: you can always use
+spin_lock_irqsave(), which is a superset of all other
+spinlock primitives.
+
+============== ============= ============= ========= ========= ========= ========= ======= ======= ============== ==============
+.              IRQ Handler A IRQ Handler B Softirq A Softirq B Tasklet A Tasklet B Timer A Timer B User Context A User Context B
+============== ============= ============= ========= ========= ========= ========= ======= ======= ============== ==============
+IRQ Handler A  None
+IRQ Handler B  SLIS          None
+Softirq A      SLI           SLI           SL
+Softirq B      SLI           SLI           SL        SL
+Tasklet A      SLI           SLI           SL        SL        None
+Tasklet B      SLI           SLI           SL        SL        SL        None
+Timer A        SLI           SLI           SL        SL        SL        SL        None
+Timer B        SLI           SLI           SL        SL        SL        SL        SL      None
+User Context A SLI           SLI           SLBH      SLBH      SLBH      SLBH      SLBH    SLBH    None
+User Context B SLI           SLI           SLBH      SLBH      SLBH      SLBH      SLBH    SLBH    MLI            None
+============== ============= ============= ========= ========= ========= ========= ======= ======= ============== ==============
+
+Table: Table of Locking Requirements
+
++--------+----------------------------+
+| SLIS   | spin_lock_irqsave          |
++--------+----------------------------+
+| SLI    | spin_lock_irq              |
++--------+----------------------------+
+| SL     | spin_lock                  |
++--------+----------------------------+
+| SLBH   | spin_lock_bh               |
++--------+----------------------------+
+| MLI    | mutex_lock_interruptible   |
++--------+----------------------------+
+
+Table: Legend for Locking Requirements Table
+
+The trylock Functions
+=====================
+
+There are functions that try to acquire a lock only once and immediately
+return a value telling about success or failure to acquire the lock.
+They can be used if you need no access to the data protected with the
+lock when some other thread is holding the lock. You should acquire the
+lock later if you then need access to the data protected with the lock.
+
+spin_trylock() does not spin but returns non-zero if it
+acquires the spinlock on the first try or 0 if not. This function can be
+used in all contexts like spin_lock(): you must have
+disabled the contexts that might interrupt you and acquire the spin
+lock.
+
+mutex_trylock() does not suspend your task but returns
+non-zero if it could lock the mutex on the first try or 0 if not. This
+function cannot be safely used in hardware or software interrupt
+contexts despite not sleeping.
+
+Common Examples
+===============
+
+Let's step through a simple example: a cache of number to name mappings.
+The cache keeps a count of how often each of the objects is used, and
+when it gets full, throws out the least used one.
+
+All In User Context
+-------------------
+
+For our first example, we assume that all operations are in user context
+(ie. from system calls), so we can sleep. This means we can use a mutex
+to protect the cache and all the objects within it. Here's the code::
+
+    #include <linux/list.h>
+    #include <linux/slab.h>
+    #include <linux/string.h>
+    #include <linux/mutex.h>
+    #include <asm/errno.h>
+
+    struct object
+    {
+            struct list_head list;
+            int id;
+            char name[32];
+            int popularity;
+    };
+
+    /* Protects the cache, cache_num, and the objects within it */
+    static DEFINE_MUTEX(cache_lock);
+    static LIST_HEAD(cache);
+    static unsigned int cache_num = 0;
+    #define MAX_CACHE_SIZE 10
+
+    /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+    static struct object *__cache_find(int id)
+    {
+            struct object *i;
+
+            list_for_each_entry(i, &cache, list)
+                    if (i->id == id) {
+                            i->popularity++;
+                            return i;
+                    }
+            return NULL;
+    }
+
+    /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+    static void __cache_delete(struct object *obj)
+    {
+            BUG_ON(!obj);
+            list_del(&obj->list);
+            kfree(obj);
+            cache_num--;
+    }
+
+    /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+    static void __cache_add(struct object *obj)
+    {
+            list_add(&obj->list, &cache);
+            if (++cache_num > MAX_CACHE_SIZE) {
+                    struct object *i, *outcast = NULL;
+                    list_for_each_entry(i, &cache, list) {
+                            if (!outcast || i->popularity < outcast->popularity)
+                                    outcast = i;
+                    }
+                    __cache_delete(outcast);
+            }
+    }
+
+    int cache_add(int id, const char *name)
+    {
+            struct object *obj;
+
+            if ((obj = kmalloc(sizeof(*obj), GFP_KERNEL)) == NULL)
+                    return -ENOMEM;
+
+            strscpy(obj->name, name, sizeof(obj->name));
+            obj->id = id;
+            obj->popularity = 0;
+
+            mutex_lock(&cache_lock);
+            __cache_add(obj);
+            mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
+            return 0;
+    }
+
+    void cache_delete(int id)
+    {
+            mutex_lock(&cache_lock);
+            __cache_delete(__cache_find(id));
+            mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
+    }
+
+    int cache_find(int id, char *name)
+    {
+            struct object *obj;
+            int ret = -ENOENT;
+
+            mutex_lock(&cache_lock);
+            obj = __cache_find(id);
+            if (obj) {
+                    ret = 0;
+                    strcpy(name, obj->name);
+            }
+            mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
+            return ret;
+    }
+
+Note that we always make sure we have the cache_lock when we add,
+delete, or look up the cache: both the cache infrastructure itself and
+the contents of the objects are protected by the lock. In this case it's
+easy, since we copy the data for the user, and never let them access the
+objects directly.
+
+There is a slight (and common) optimization here: in
+cache_add() we set up the fields of the object before
+grabbing the lock. This is safe, as no-one else can access it until we
+put it in cache.
+
+Accessing From Interrupt Context
+--------------------------------
+
+Now consider the case where cache_find() can be called
+from interrupt context: either a hardware interrupt or a softirq. An
+example would be a timer which deletes object from the cache.
+
+The change is shown below, in standard patch format: the ``-`` are lines
+which are taken away, and the ``+`` are lines which are added.
+
+::
+
+    --- cache.c.usercontext 2003-12-09 13:58:54.000000000 +1100
+    +++ cache.c.interrupt   2003-12-09 14:07:49.000000000 +1100
+    @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
+             int popularity;
+     };
+
+    -static DEFINE_MUTEX(cache_lock);
+    +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(cache_lock);
+     static LIST_HEAD(cache);
+     static unsigned int cache_num = 0;
+     #define MAX_CACHE_SIZE 10
+    @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
+     int cache_add(int id, const char *name)
+     {
+             struct object *obj;
+    +        unsigned long flags;
+
+             if ((obj = kmalloc(sizeof(*obj), GFP_KERNEL)) == NULL)
+                     return -ENOMEM;
+    @@ -63,30 +64,33 @@
+             obj->id = id;
+             obj->popularity = 0;
+
+    -        mutex_lock(&cache_lock);
+    +        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             __cache_add(obj);
+    -        mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
+    +        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+             return 0;
+     }
+
+     void cache_delete(int id)
+     {
+    -        mutex_lock(&cache_lock);
+    +        unsigned long flags;
+    +
+    +        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             __cache_delete(__cache_find(id));
+    -        mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
+    +        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+     }
+
+     int cache_find(int id, char *name)
+     {
+             struct object *obj;
+             int ret = -ENOENT;
+    +        unsigned long flags;
+
+    -        mutex_lock(&cache_lock);
+    +        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             obj = __cache_find(id);
+             if (obj) {
+                     ret = 0;
+                     strcpy(name, obj->name);
+             }
+    -        mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
+    +        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+             return ret;
+     }
+
+Note that the spin_lock_irqsave() will turn off
+interrupts if they are on, otherwise does nothing (if we are already in
+an interrupt handler), hence these functions are safe to call from any
+context.
+
+Unfortunately, cache_add() calls kmalloc()
+with the ``GFP_KERNEL`` flag, which is only legal in user context. I
+have assumed that cache_add() is still only called in
+user context, otherwise this should become a parameter to
+cache_add().
+
+Exposing Objects Outside This File
+----------------------------------
+
+If our objects contained more information, it might not be sufficient to
+copy the information in and out: other parts of the code might want to
+keep pointers to these objects, for example, rather than looking up the
+id every time. This produces two problems.
+
+The first problem is that we use the ``cache_lock`` to protect objects:
+we'd need to make this non-static so the rest of the code can use it.
+This makes locking trickier, as it is no longer all in one place.
+
+The second problem is the lifetime problem: if another structure keeps a
+pointer to an object, it presumably expects that pointer to remain
+valid. Unfortunately, this is only guaranteed while you hold the lock,
+otherwise someone might call cache_delete() and even
+worse, add another object, re-using the same address.
+
+As there is only one lock, you can't hold it forever: no-one else would
+get any work done.
+
+The solution to this problem is to use a reference count: everyone who
+has a pointer to the object increases it when they first get the object,
+and drops the reference count when they're finished with it. Whoever
+drops it to zero knows it is unused, and can actually delete it.
+
+Here is the code::
+
+    --- cache.c.interrupt   2003-12-09 14:25:43.000000000 +1100
+    +++ cache.c.refcnt  2003-12-09 14:33:05.000000000 +1100
+    @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
+     struct object
+     {
+             struct list_head list;
+    +        unsigned int refcnt;
+             int id;
+             char name[32];
+             int popularity;
+    @@ -17,6 +18,35 @@
+     static unsigned int cache_num = 0;
+     #define MAX_CACHE_SIZE 10
+
+    +static void __object_put(struct object *obj)
+    +{
+    +        if (--obj->refcnt == 0)
+    +                kfree(obj);
+    +}
+    +
+    +static void __object_get(struct object *obj)
+    +{
+    +        obj->refcnt++;
+    +}
+    +
+    +void object_put(struct object *obj)
+    +{
+    +        unsigned long flags;
+    +
+    +        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +        __object_put(obj);
+    +        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +}
+    +
+    +void object_get(struct object *obj)
+    +{
+    +        unsigned long flags;
+    +
+    +        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +        __object_get(obj);
+    +        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +}
+    +
+     /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+     static struct object *__cache_find(int id)
+     {
+    @@ -35,6 +65,7 @@
+     {
+             BUG_ON(!obj);
+             list_del(&obj->list);
+    +        __object_put(obj);
+             cache_num--;
+     }
+
+    @@ -63,6 +94,7 @@
+             strscpy(obj->name, name, sizeof(obj->name));
+             obj->id = id;
+             obj->popularity = 0;
+    +        obj->refcnt = 1; /* The cache holds a reference */
+
+             spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             __cache_add(obj);
+    @@ -79,18 +111,15 @@
+             spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+     }
+
+    -int cache_find(int id, char *name)
+    +struct object *cache_find(int id)
+     {
+             struct object *obj;
+    -        int ret = -ENOENT;
+             unsigned long flags;
+
+             spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             obj = __cache_find(id);
+    -        if (obj) {
+    -                ret = 0;
+    -                strcpy(name, obj->name);
+    -        }
+    +        if (obj)
+    +                __object_get(obj);
+             spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+    -        return ret;
+    +        return obj;
+     }
+
+We encapsulate the reference counting in the standard 'get' and 'put'
+functions. Now we can return the object itself from
+cache_find() which has the advantage that the user can
+now sleep holding the object (eg. to copy_to_user() to
+name to userspace).
+
+The other point to note is that I said a reference should be held for
+every pointer to the object: thus the reference count is 1 when first
+inserted into the cache. In some versions the framework does not hold a
+reference count, but they are more complicated.
+
+Using Atomic Operations For The Reference Count
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+In practice, :c:type:`atomic_t` would usually be used for refcnt. There are a
+number of atomic operations defined in ``include/asm/atomic.h``: these
+are guaranteed to be seen atomically from all CPUs in the system, so no
+lock is required. In this case, it is simpler than using spinlocks,
+although for anything non-trivial using spinlocks is clearer. The
+atomic_inc() and atomic_dec_and_test()
+are used instead of the standard increment and decrement operators, and
+the lock is no longer used to protect the reference count itself.
+
+::
+
+    --- cache.c.refcnt  2003-12-09 15:00:35.000000000 +1100
+    +++ cache.c.refcnt-atomic   2003-12-11 15:49:42.000000000 +1100
+    @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
+     struct object
+     {
+             struct list_head list;
+    -        unsigned int refcnt;
+    +        atomic_t refcnt;
+             int id;
+             char name[32];
+             int popularity;
+    @@ -18,33 +18,15 @@
+     static unsigned int cache_num = 0;
+     #define MAX_CACHE_SIZE 10
+
+    -static void __object_put(struct object *obj)
+    -{
+    -        if (--obj->refcnt == 0)
+    -                kfree(obj);
+    -}
+    -
+    -static void __object_get(struct object *obj)
+    -{
+    -        obj->refcnt++;
+    -}
+    -
+     void object_put(struct object *obj)
+     {
+    -        unsigned long flags;
+    -
+    -        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+    -        __object_put(obj);
+    -        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +        if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt))
+    +                kfree(obj);
+     }
+
+     void object_get(struct object *obj)
+     {
+    -        unsigned long flags;
+    -
+    -        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+    -        __object_get(obj);
+    -        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +        atomic_inc(&obj->refcnt);
+     }
+
+     /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+    @@ -65,7 +47,7 @@
+     {
+             BUG_ON(!obj);
+             list_del(&obj->list);
+    -        __object_put(obj);
+    +        object_put(obj);
+             cache_num--;
+     }
+
+    @@ -94,7 +76,7 @@
+             strscpy(obj->name, name, sizeof(obj->name));
+             obj->id = id;
+             obj->popularity = 0;
+    -        obj->refcnt = 1; /* The cache holds a reference */
+    +        atomic_set(&obj->refcnt, 1); /* The cache holds a reference */
+
+             spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             __cache_add(obj);
+    @@ -119,7 +101,7 @@
+             spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             obj = __cache_find(id);
+             if (obj)
+    -                __object_get(obj);
+    +                object_get(obj);
+             spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+             return obj;
+     }
+
+Protecting The Objects Themselves
+---------------------------------
+
+In these examples, we assumed that the objects (except the reference
+counts) never changed once they are created. If we wanted to allow the
+name to change, there are three possibilities:
+
+-  You can make ``cache_lock`` non-static, and tell people to grab that
+   lock before changing the name in any object.
+
+-  You can provide a cache_obj_rename() which grabs this
+   lock and changes the name for the caller, and tell everyone to use
+   that function.
+
+-  You can make the ``cache_lock`` protect only the cache itself, and
+   use another lock to protect the name.
+
+Theoretically, you can make the locks as fine-grained as one lock for
+every field, for every object. In practice, the most common variants
+are:
+
+-  One lock which protects the infrastructure (the ``cache`` list in
+   this example) and all the objects. This is what we have done so far.
+
+-  One lock which protects the infrastructure (including the list
+   pointers inside the objects), and one lock inside the object which
+   protects the rest of that object.
+
+-  Multiple locks to protect the infrastructure (eg. one lock per hash
+   chain), possibly with a separate per-object lock.
+
+Here is the "lock-per-object" implementation:
+
+::
+
+    --- cache.c.refcnt-atomic   2003-12-11 15:50:54.000000000 +1100
+    +++ cache.c.perobjectlock   2003-12-11 17:15:03.000000000 +1100
+    @@ -6,11 +6,17 @@
+
+     struct object
+     {
+    +        /* These two protected by cache_lock. */
+             struct list_head list;
+    +        int popularity;
+    +
+             atomic_t refcnt;
+    +
+    +        /* Doesn't change once created. */
+             int id;
+    +
+    +        spinlock_t lock; /* Protects the name */
+             char name[32];
+    -        int popularity;
+     };
+
+     static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(cache_lock);
+    @@ -77,6 +84,7 @@
+             obj->id = id;
+             obj->popularity = 0;
+             atomic_set(&obj->refcnt, 1); /* The cache holds a reference */
+    +        spin_lock_init(&obj->lock);
+
+             spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             __cache_add(obj);
+
+Note that I decide that the popularity count should be protected by the
+``cache_lock`` rather than the per-object lock: this is because it (like
+the :c:type:`struct list_head <list_head>` inside the object)
+is logically part of the infrastructure. This way, I don't need to grab
+the lock of every object in __cache_add() when seeking
+the least popular.
+
+I also decided that the id member is unchangeable, so I don't need to
+grab each object lock in __cache_find() to examine the
+id: the object lock is only used by a caller who wants to read or write
+the name field.
+
+Note also that I added a comment describing what data was protected by
+which locks. This is extremely important, as it describes the runtime
+behavior of the code, and can be hard to gain from just reading. And as
+Alan Cox says, “Lock data, not code”.
+
+Common Problems
+===============
+
+Deadlock: Simple and Advanced
+-----------------------------
+
+There is a coding bug where a piece of code tries to grab a spinlock
+twice: it will spin forever, waiting for the lock to be released
+(spinlocks, rwlocks and mutexes are not recursive in Linux). This is
+trivial to diagnose: not a
+stay-up-five-nights-talk-to-fluffy-code-bunnies kind of problem.
+
+For a slightly more complex case, imagine you have a region shared by a
+softirq and user context. If you use a spin_lock() call
+to protect it, it is possible that the user context will be interrupted
+by the softirq while it holds the lock, and the softirq will then spin
+forever trying to get the same lock.
+
+Both of these are called deadlock, and as shown above, it can occur even
+with a single CPU (although not on UP compiles, since spinlocks vanish
+on kernel compiles with ``CONFIG_SMP``\ =n. You'll still get data
+corruption in the second example).
+
+This complete lockup is easy to diagnose: on SMP boxes the watchdog
+timer or compiling with ``DEBUG_SPINLOCK`` set
+(``include/linux/spinlock.h``) will show this up immediately when it
+happens.
+
+A more complex problem is the so-called 'deadly embrace', involving two
+or more locks. Say you have a hash table: each entry in the table is a
+spinlock, and a chain of hashed objects. Inside a softirq handler, you
+sometimes want to alter an object from one place in the hash to another:
+you grab the spinlock of the old hash chain and the spinlock of the new
+hash chain, and delete the object from the old one, and insert it in the
+new one.
+
+There are two problems here. First, if your code ever tries to move the
+object to the same chain, it will deadlock with itself as it tries to
+lock it twice. Secondly, if the same softirq on another CPU is trying to
+move another object in the reverse direction, the following could
+happen:
+
++-----------------------+-----------------------+
+| CPU 1                 | CPU 2                 |
++=======================+=======================+
+| Grab lock A -> OK     | Grab lock B -> OK     |
++-----------------------+-----------------------+
+| Grab lock B -> spin   | Grab lock A -> spin   |
++-----------------------+-----------------------+
+
+Table: Consequences
+
+The two CPUs will spin forever, waiting for the other to give up their
+lock. It will look, smell, and feel like a crash.
+
+Preventing Deadlock
+-------------------
+
+Textbooks will tell you that if you always lock in the same order, you
+will never get this kind of deadlock. Practice will tell you that this
+approach doesn't scale: when I create a new lock, I don't understand
+enough of the kernel to figure out where in the 5000 lock hierarchy it
+will fit.
+
+The best locks are encapsulated: they never get exposed in headers, and
+are never held around calls to non-trivial functions outside the same
+file. You can read through this code and see that it will never
+deadlock, because it never tries to grab another lock while it has that
+one. People using your code don't even need to know you are using a
+lock.
+
+A classic problem here is when you provide callbacks or hooks: if you
+call these with the lock held, you risk simple deadlock, or a deadly
+embrace (who knows what the callback will do?).
+
+Overzealous Prevention Of Deadlocks
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Deadlocks are problematic, but not as bad as data corruption. Code which
+grabs a read lock, searches a list, fails to find what it wants, drops
+the read lock, grabs a write lock and inserts the object has a race
+condition.
+
+Racing Timers: A Kernel Pastime
+-------------------------------
+
+Timers can produce their own special problems with races. Consider a
+collection of objects (list, hash, etc) where each object has a timer
+which is due to destroy it.
+
+If you want to destroy the entire collection (say on module removal),
+you might do the following::
+
+            /* THIS CODE BAD BAD BAD BAD: IF IT WAS ANY WORSE IT WOULD USE
+               HUNGARIAN NOTATION */
+            spin_lock_bh(&list_lock);
+
+            while (list) {
+                    struct foo *next = list->next;
+                    del_timer(&list->timer);
+                    kfree(list);
+                    list = next;
+            }
+
+            spin_unlock_bh(&list_lock);
+
+
+Sooner or later, this will crash on SMP, because a timer can have just
+gone off before the spin_lock_bh(), and it will only get
+the lock after we spin_unlock_bh(), and then try to free
+the element (which has already been freed!).
+
+This can be avoided by checking the result of
+del_timer(): if it returns 1, the timer has been deleted.
+If 0, it means (in this case) that it is currently running, so we can
+do::
+
+            retry:
+                    spin_lock_bh(&list_lock);
+
+                    while (list) {
+                            struct foo *next = list->next;
+                            if (!del_timer(&list->timer)) {
+                                    /* Give timer a chance to delete this */
+                                    spin_unlock_bh(&list_lock);
+                                    goto retry;
+                            }
+                            kfree(list);
+                            list = next;
+                    }
+
+                    spin_unlock_bh(&list_lock);
+
+
+Another common problem is deleting timers which restart themselves (by
+calling add_timer() at the end of their timer function).
+Because this is a fairly common case which is prone to races, you should
+use del_timer_sync() (``include/linux/timer.h``) to
+handle this case. It returns the number of times the timer had to be
+deleted before we finally stopped it from adding itself back in.
+
+Locking Speed
+=============
+
+There are three main things to worry about when considering speed of
+some code which does locking. First is concurrency: how many things are
+going to be waiting while someone else is holding a lock. Second is the
+time taken to actually acquire and release an uncontended lock. Third is
+using fewer, or smarter locks. I'm assuming that the lock is used fairly
+often: otherwise, you wouldn't be concerned about efficiency.
+
+Concurrency depends on how long the lock is usually held: you should
+hold the lock for as long as needed, but no longer. In the cache
+example, we always create the object without the lock held, and then
+grab the lock only when we are ready to insert it in the list.
+
+Acquisition times depend on how much damage the lock operations do to
+the pipeline (pipeline stalls) and how likely it is that this CPU was
+the last one to grab the lock (ie. is the lock cache-hot for this CPU):
+on a machine with more CPUs, this likelihood drops fast. Consider a
+700MHz Intel Pentium III: an instruction takes about 0.7ns, an atomic
+increment takes about 58ns, a lock which is cache-hot on this CPU takes
+160ns, and a cacheline transfer from another CPU takes an additional 170
+to 360ns. (These figures from Paul McKenney's `Linux Journal RCU
+article <http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6993>`__).
+
+These two aims conflict: holding a lock for a short time might be done
+by splitting locks into parts (such as in our final per-object-lock
+example), but this increases the number of lock acquisitions, and the
+results are often slower than having a single lock. This is another
+reason to advocate locking simplicity.
+
+The third concern is addressed below: there are some methods to reduce
+the amount of locking which needs to be done.
+
+Read/Write Lock Variants
+------------------------
+
+Both spinlocks and mutexes have read/write variants: ``rwlock_t`` and
+:c:type:`struct rw_semaphore <rw_semaphore>`. These divide
+users into two classes: the readers and the writers. If you are only
+reading the data, you can get a read lock, but to write to the data you
+need the write lock. Many people can hold a read lock, but a writer must
+be sole holder.
+
+If your code divides neatly along reader/writer lines (as our cache code
+does), and the lock is held by readers for significant lengths of time,
+using these locks can help. They are slightly slower than the normal
+locks though, so in practice ``rwlock_t`` is not usually worthwhile.
+
+Avoiding Locks: Read Copy Update
+--------------------------------
+
+There is a special method of read/write locking called Read Copy Update.
+Using RCU, the readers can avoid taking a lock altogether: as we expect
+our cache to be read more often than updated (otherwise the cache is a
+waste of time), it is a candidate for this optimization.
+
+How do we get rid of read locks? Getting rid of read locks means that
+writers may be changing the list underneath the readers. That is
+actually quite simple: we can read a linked list while an element is
+being added if the writer adds the element very carefully. For example,
+adding ``new`` to a single linked list called ``list``::
+
+            new->next = list->next;
+            wmb();
+            list->next = new;
+
+
+The wmb() is a write memory barrier. It ensures that the
+first operation (setting the new element's ``next`` pointer) is complete
+and will be seen by all CPUs, before the second operation is (putting
+the new element into the list). This is important, since modern
+compilers and modern CPUs can both reorder instructions unless told
+otherwise: we want a reader to either not see the new element at all, or
+see the new element with the ``next`` pointer correctly pointing at the
+rest of the list.
+
+Fortunately, there is a function to do this for standard
+:c:type:`struct list_head <list_head>` lists:
+list_add_rcu() (``include/linux/list.h``).
+
+Removing an element from the list is even simpler: we replace the
+pointer to the old element with a pointer to its successor, and readers
+will either see it, or skip over it.
+
+::
+
+            list->next = old->next;
+
+
+There is list_del_rcu() (``include/linux/list.h``) which
+does this (the normal version poisons the old object, which we don't
+want).
+
+The reader must also be careful: some CPUs can look through the ``next``
+pointer to start reading the contents of the next element early, but
+don't realize that the pre-fetched contents is wrong when the ``next``
+pointer changes underneath them. Once again, there is a
+list_for_each_entry_rcu() (``include/linux/list.h``)
+to help you. Of course, writers can just use
+list_for_each_entry(), since there cannot be two
+simultaneous writers.
+
+Our final dilemma is this: when can we actually destroy the removed
+element? Remember, a reader might be stepping through this element in
+the list right now: if we free this element and the ``next`` pointer
+changes, the reader will jump off into garbage and crash. We need to
+wait until we know that all the readers who were traversing the list
+when we deleted the element are finished. We use
+call_rcu() to register a callback which will actually
+destroy the object once all pre-existing readers are finished.
+Alternatively, synchronize_rcu() may be used to block
+until all pre-existing are finished.
+
+But how does Read Copy Update know when the readers are finished? The
+method is this: firstly, the readers always traverse the list inside
+rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pairs:
+these simply disable preemption so the reader won't go to sleep while
+reading the list.
+
+RCU then waits until every other CPU has slept at least once: since
+readers cannot sleep, we know that any readers which were traversing the
+list during the deletion are finished, and the callback is triggered.
+The real Read Copy Update code is a little more optimized than this, but
+this is the fundamental idea.
+
+::
+
+    --- cache.c.perobjectlock   2003-12-11 17:15:03.000000000 +1100
+    +++ cache.c.rcupdate    2003-12-11 17:55:14.000000000 +1100
+    @@ -1,15 +1,18 @@
+     #include <linux/list.h>
+     #include <linux/slab.h>
+     #include <linux/string.h>
+    +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
+     #include <linux/mutex.h>
+     #include <asm/errno.h>
+
+     struct object
+     {
+    -        /* These two protected by cache_lock. */
+    +        /* This is protected by RCU */
+             struct list_head list;
+             int popularity;
+
+    +        struct rcu_head rcu;
+    +
+             atomic_t refcnt;
+
+             /* Doesn't change once created. */
+    @@ -40,7 +43,7 @@
+     {
+             struct object *i;
+
+    -        list_for_each_entry(i, &cache, list) {
+    +        list_for_each_entry_rcu(i, &cache, list) {
+                     if (i->id == id) {
+                             i->popularity++;
+                             return i;
+    @@ -49,19 +52,25 @@
+             return NULL;
+     }
+
+    +/* Final discard done once we know no readers are looking. */
+    +static void cache_delete_rcu(void *arg)
+    +{
+    +        object_put(arg);
+    +}
+    +
+     /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+     static void __cache_delete(struct object *obj)
+     {
+             BUG_ON(!obj);
+    -        list_del(&obj->list);
+    -        object_put(obj);
+    +        list_del_rcu(&obj->list);
+             cache_num--;
+    +        call_rcu(&obj->rcu, cache_delete_rcu);
+     }
+
+     /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+     static void __cache_add(struct object *obj)
+     {
+    -        list_add(&obj->list, &cache);
+    +        list_add_rcu(&obj->list, &cache);
+             if (++cache_num > MAX_CACHE_SIZE) {
+                     struct object *i, *outcast = NULL;
+                     list_for_each_entry(i, &cache, list) {
+    @@ -104,12 +114,11 @@
+     struct object *cache_find(int id)
+     {
+             struct object *obj;
+    -        unsigned long flags;
+
+    -        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +        rcu_read_lock();
+             obj = __cache_find(id);
+             if (obj)
+                     object_get(obj);
+    -        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +        rcu_read_unlock();
+             return obj;
+     }
+
+Note that the reader will alter the popularity member in
+__cache_find(), and now it doesn't hold a lock. One
+solution would be to make it an ``atomic_t``, but for this usage, we
+don't really care about races: an approximate result is good enough, so
+I didn't change it.
+
+The result is that cache_find() requires no
+synchronization with any other functions, so is almost as fast on SMP as
+it would be on UP.
+
+There is a further optimization possible here: remember our original
+cache code, where there were no reference counts and the caller simply
+held the lock whenever using the object? This is still possible: if you
+hold the lock, no one can delete the object, so you don't need to get
+and put the reference count.
+
+Now, because the 'read lock' in RCU is simply disabling preemption, a
+caller which always has preemption disabled between calling
+cache_find() and object_put() does not
+need to actually get and put the reference count: we could expose
+__cache_find() by making it non-static, and such
+callers could simply call that.
+
+The benefit here is that the reference count is not written to: the
+object is not altered in any way, which is much faster on SMP machines
+due to caching.
+
+Per-CPU Data
+------------
+
+Another technique for avoiding locking which is used fairly widely is to
+duplicate information for each CPU. For example, if you wanted to keep a
+count of a common condition, you could use a spin lock and a single
+counter. Nice and simple.
+
+If that was too slow (it's usually not, but if you've got a really big
+machine to test on and can show that it is), you could instead use a
+counter for each CPU, then none of them need an exclusive lock. See
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(), get_cpu_var() and
+put_cpu_var() (``include/linux/percpu.h``).
+
+Of particular use for simple per-cpu counters is the ``local_t`` type,
+and the cpu_local_inc() and related functions, which are
+more efficient than simple code on some architectures
+(``include/asm/local.h``).
+
+Note that there is no simple, reliable way of getting an exact value of
+such a counter, without introducing more locks. This is not a problem
+for some uses.
+
+Data Which Mostly Used By An IRQ Handler
+----------------------------------------
+
+If data is always accessed from within the same IRQ handler, you don't
+need a lock at all: the kernel already guarantees that the irq handler
+will not run simultaneously on multiple CPUs.
+
+Manfred Spraul points out that you can still do this, even if the data
+is very occasionally accessed in user context or softirqs/tasklets. The
+irq handler doesn't use a lock, and all other accesses are done as so::
+
+        spin_lock(&lock);
+        disable_irq(irq);
+        ...
+        enable_irq(irq);
+        spin_unlock(&lock);
+
+The disable_irq() prevents the irq handler from running
+(and waits for it to finish if it's currently running on other CPUs).
+The spinlock prevents any other accesses happening at the same time.
+Naturally, this is slower than just a spin_lock_irq()
+call, so it only makes sense if this type of access happens extremely
+rarely.
+
+What Functions Are Safe To Call From Interrupts?
+================================================
+
+Many functions in the kernel sleep (ie. call schedule()) directly or
+indirectly: you can never call them while holding a spinlock, or with
+preemption disabled. This also means you need to be in user context:
+calling them from an interrupt is illegal.
+
+Some Functions Which Sleep
+--------------------------
+
+The most common ones are listed below, but you usually have to read the
+code to find out if other calls are safe. If everyone else who calls it
+can sleep, you probably need to be able to sleep, too. In particular,
+registration and deregistration functions usually expect to be called
+from user context, and can sleep.
+
+-  Accesses to userspace:
+
+   -  copy_from_user()
+
+   -  copy_to_user()
+
+   -  get_user()
+
+   -  put_user()
+
+-  kmalloc(GP_KERNEL) <kmalloc>`
+
+-  mutex_lock_interruptible() and
+   mutex_lock()
+
+   There is a mutex_trylock() which does not sleep.
+   Still, it must not be used inside interrupt context since its
+   implementation is not safe for that. mutex_unlock()
+   will also never sleep. It cannot be used in interrupt context either
+   since a mutex must be released by the same task that acquired it.
+
+Some Functions Which Don't Sleep
+--------------------------------
+
+Some functions are safe to call from any context, or holding almost any
+lock.
+
+-  printk()
+
+-  kfree()
+
+-  add_timer() and del_timer()
+
+Mutex API reference
+===================
+
+.. kernel-doc:: include/linux/mutex.h
+   :internal:
+
+.. kernel-doc:: kernel/locking/mutex.c
+   :export:
+
+Futex API reference
+===================
+
+.. kernel-doc:: kernel/futex/core.c
+   :internal:
+
+.. kernel-doc:: kernel/futex/futex.h
+   :internal:
+
+.. kernel-doc:: kernel/futex/pi.c
+   :internal:
+
+.. kernel-doc:: kernel/futex/requeue.c
+   :internal:
+
+.. kernel-doc:: kernel/futex/waitwake.c
+   :internal:
+
+Further reading
+===============
+
+-  ``Documentation/locking/spinlocks.rst``: Linus Torvalds' spinlocking
+   tutorial in the kernel sources.
+
+-  Unix Systems for Modern Architectures: Symmetric Multiprocessing and
+   Caching for Kernel Programmers:
+
+   Curt Schimmel's very good introduction to kernel level locking (not
+   written for Linux, but nearly everything applies). The book is
+   expensive, but really worth every penny to understand SMP locking.
+   [ISBN: 0201633388]
+
+Thanks
+======
+
+Thanks to Telsa Gwynne for DocBooking, neatening and adding style.
+
+Thanks to Martin Pool, Philipp Rumpf, Stephen Rothwell, Paul Mackerras,
+Ruedi Aschwanden, Alan Cox, Manfred Spraul, Tim Waugh, Pete Zaitcev,
+James Morris, Robert Love, Paul McKenney, John Ashby for proofreading,
+correcting, flaming, commenting.
+
+Thanks to the cabal for having no influence on this document.
+
+Glossary
+========
+
+preemption
+  Prior to 2.5, or when ``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` is unset, processes in user
+  context inside the kernel would not preempt each other (ie. you had that
+  CPU until you gave it up, except for interrupts). With the addition of
+  ``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` in 2.5.4, this changed: when in user context, higher
+  priority tasks can "cut in": spinlocks were changed to disable
+  preemption, even on UP.
+
+bh
+  Bottom Half: for historical reasons, functions with '_bh' in them often
+  now refer to any software interrupt, e.g. spin_lock_bh()
+  blocks any software interrupt on the current CPU. Bottom halves are
+  deprecated, and will eventually be replaced by tasklets. Only one bottom
+  half will be running at any time.
+
+Hardware Interrupt / Hardware IRQ
+  Hardware interrupt request. in_hardirq() returns true in a
+  hardware interrupt handler.
+
+Interrupt Context
+  Not user context: processing a hardware irq or software irq. Indicated
+  by the in_interrupt() macro returning true.
+
+SMP
+  Symmetric Multi-Processor: kernels compiled for multiple-CPU machines.
+  (``CONFIG_SMP=y``).
+
+Software Interrupt / softirq
+  Software interrupt handler. in_hardirq() returns false;
+  in_softirq() returns true. Tasklets and softirqs both
+  fall into the category of 'software interrupts'.
+
+  Strictly speaking a softirq is one of up to 32 enumerated software
+  interrupts which can run on multiple CPUs at once. Sometimes used to
+  refer to tasklets as well (ie. all software interrupts).
+
+tasklet
+  A dynamically-registrable software interrupt, which is guaranteed to
+  only run on one CPU at a time.
+
+timer
+  A dynamically-registrable software interrupt, which is run at (or close
+  to) a given time. When running, it is just like a tasklet (in fact, they
+  are called from the ``TIMER_SOFTIRQ``).
+
+UP
+  Uni-Processor: Non-SMP. (``CONFIG_SMP=n``).
+
+User Context
+  The kernel executing on behalf of a particular process (ie. a system
+  call or trap) or kernel thread. You can tell which process with the
+  ``current`` macro.) Not to be confused with userspace. Can be
+  interrupted by software or hardware interrupts.
+
+Userspace
+  A process executing its own code outside the kernel.