Adding upstream version 6.6.15.upstream/6.6.15

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

1 files changed, 144 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/locking/preempt-locking.rst b/Documentation/locking/preempt-locking.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..dce336134e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/locking/preempt-locking.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+===========================================================================
+Proper Locking Under a Preemptible Kernel: Keeping Kernel Code Preempt-Safe
+===========================================================================
+
+:Author: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
+
+
+Introduction
+============
+
+
+A preemptible kernel creates new locking issues.  The issues are the same as
+those under SMP: concurrency and reentrancy.  Thankfully, the Linux preemptible
+kernel model leverages existing SMP locking mechanisms.  Thus, the kernel
+requires explicit additional locking for very few additional situations.
+
+This document is for all kernel hackers.  Developing code in the kernel
+requires protecting these situations.
+ 
+
+RULE #1: Per-CPU data structures need explicit protection
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+
+Two similar problems arise. An example code snippet::
+
+	struct this_needs_locking tux[NR_CPUS];
+	tux[smp_processor_id()] = some_value;
+	/* task is preempted here... */
+	something = tux[smp_processor_id()];
+
+First, since the data is per-CPU, it may not have explicit SMP locking, but
+require it otherwise.  Second, when a preempted task is finally rescheduled,
+the previous value of smp_processor_id may not equal the current.  You must
+protect these situations by disabling preemption around them.
+
+You can also use put_cpu() and get_cpu(), which will disable preemption.
+
+
+RULE #2: CPU state must be protected.
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+
+Under preemption, the state of the CPU must be protected.  This is arch-
+dependent, but includes CPU structures and state not preserved over a context
+switch.  For example, on x86, entering and exiting FPU mode is now a critical
+section that must occur while preemption is disabled.  Think what would happen
+if the kernel is executing a floating-point instruction and is then preempted.
+Remember, the kernel does not save FPU state except for user tasks.  Therefore,
+upon preemption, the FPU registers will be sold to the lowest bidder.  Thus,
+preemption must be disabled around such regions.
+
+Note, some FPU functions are already explicitly preempt safe.  For example,
+kernel_fpu_begin and kernel_fpu_end will disable and enable preemption.
+
+
+RULE #3: Lock acquire and release must be performed by same task
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+
+A lock acquired in one task must be released by the same task.  This
+means you can't do oddball things like acquire a lock and go off to
+play while another task releases it.  If you want to do something
+like this, acquire and release the task in the same code path and
+have the caller wait on an event by the other task.
+
+
+Solution
+========
+
+
+Data protection under preemption is achieved by disabling preemption for the
+duration of the critical region.
+
+::
+
+  preempt_enable()		decrement the preempt counter
+  preempt_disable()		increment the preempt counter
+  preempt_enable_no_resched()	decrement, but do not immediately preempt
+  preempt_check_resched()	if needed, reschedule
+  preempt_count()		return the preempt counter
+
+The functions are nestable.  In other words, you can call preempt_disable
+n-times in a code path, and preemption will not be reenabled until the n-th
+call to preempt_enable.  The preempt statements define to nothing if
+preemption is not enabled.
+
+Note that you do not need to explicitly prevent preemption if you are holding
+any locks or interrupts are disabled, since preemption is implicitly disabled
+in those cases.
+
+But keep in mind that 'irqs disabled' is a fundamentally unsafe way of
+disabling preemption - any cond_resched() or cond_resched_lock() might trigger
+a reschedule if the preempt count is 0. A simple printk() might trigger a
+reschedule. So use this implicit preemption-disabling property only if you
+know that the affected codepath does not do any of this. Best policy is to use
+this only for small, atomic code that you wrote and which calls no complex
+functions.
+
+Example::
+
+	cpucache_t *cc; /* this is per-CPU */
+	preempt_disable();
+	cc = cc_data(searchp);
+	if (cc && cc->avail) {
+		__free_block(searchp, cc_entry(cc), cc->avail);
+		cc->avail = 0;
+	}
+	preempt_enable();
+	return 0;
+
+Notice how the preemption statements must encompass every reference of the
+critical variables.  Another example::
+
+	int buf[NR_CPUS];
+	set_cpu_val(buf);
+	if (buf[smp_processor_id()] == -1) printf(KERN_INFO "wee!\n");
+	spin_lock(&buf_lock);
+	/* ... */
+
+This code is not preempt-safe, but see how easily we can fix it by simply
+moving the spin_lock up two lines.
+
+
+Preventing preemption using interrupt disabling
+===============================================
+
+
+It is possible to prevent a preemption event using local_irq_disable and
+local_irq_save.  Note, when doing so, you must be very careful to not cause
+an event that would set need_resched and result in a preemption check.  When
+in doubt, rely on locking or explicit preemption disabling.
+
+Note in 2.5 interrupt disabling is now only per-CPU (e.g. local).
+
+An additional concern is proper usage of local_irq_disable and local_irq_save.
+These may be used to protect from preemption, however, on exit, if preemption
+may be enabled, a test to see if preemption is required should be done.  If
+these are called from the spin_lock and read/write lock macros, the right thing
+is done.  They may also be called within a spin-lock protected region, however,
+if they are ever called outside of this context, a test for preemption should
+be made. Do note that calls from interrupt context or bottom half/ tasklets
+are also protected by preemption locks and so may use the versions which do
+not check preemption.