|
@@ -849,6 +849,37 @@ All: lockdep-checked RCU-protected pointer access
|
|
|
See the comment headers in the source code (or the docbook generated
|
|
|
from them) for more information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+However, given that there are no fewer than four families of RCU APIs
|
|
|
+in the Linux kernel, how do you choose which one to use? The following
|
|
|
+list can be helpful:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+a. Will readers need to block? If so, you need SRCU.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+b. What about the -rt patchset? If readers would need to block
|
|
|
+ in an non-rt kernel, you need SRCU. If readers would block
|
|
|
+ in a -rt kernel, but not in a non-rt kernel, SRCU is not
|
|
|
+ necessary.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+c. Do you need to treat NMI handlers, hardirq handlers,
|
|
|
+ and code segments with preemption disabled (whether
|
|
|
+ via preempt_disable(), local_irq_save(), local_bh_disable(),
|
|
|
+ or some other mechanism) as if they were explicit RCU readers?
|
|
|
+ If so, you need RCU-sched.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+d. Do you need RCU grace periods to complete even in the face
|
|
|
+ of softirq monopolization of one or more of the CPUs? For
|
|
|
+ example, is your code subject to network-based denial-of-service
|
|
|
+ attacks? If so, you need RCU-bh.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+e. Is your workload too update-intensive for normal use of
|
|
|
+ RCU, but inappropriate for other synchronization mechanisms?
|
|
|
+ If so, consider SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. But please be careful!
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+f. Otherwise, use RCU.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Of course, this all assumes that you have determined that RCU is in fact
|
|
|
+the right tool for your job.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. ANSWERS TO QUICK QUIZZES
|
|
|
|