CONFIG_PREEMPTION is selected by CONFIG_PREEMPT and by CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT.
Both PREEMPT and PREEMPT_RT require the same functionality which today
depends on CONFIG_PREEMPT.
Update the documents and mention CONFIG_PREEMPTION. Spell out
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT (instead PREEMPT_RT) since it is an option now.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
RCU-preempt Expedited Grace Periods
===================================
-``CONFIG_PREEMPT=y`` kernels implement RCU-preempt.
+``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y`` kernels implement RCU-preempt.
The overall flow of the handling of a given CPU by an RCU-preempt
expedited grace period is shown in the following diagram:
RCU-sched Expedited Grace Periods
---------------------------------
-``CONFIG_PREEMPT=n`` kernels implement RCU-sched. The overall flow of
+``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=n`` kernels implement RCU-sched. The overall flow of
the handling of a given CPU by an RCU-sched expedited grace period is
shown in the following diagram:
Production-quality implementations of rcu_read_lock() and
rcu_read_unlock() are extremely lightweight, and in fact have
exactly zero overhead in Linux kernels built for production use with
-``CONFIG_PREEMPT=n``.
+``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=n``.
This guarantee allows ordering to be enforced with extremely low
overhead to readers, for example:
costs have plummeted. However, as I learned from Matt Mackall's
`bloatwatch <http://elinux.org/Linux_Tiny-FAQ>`__ efforts, memory
footprint is critically important on single-CPU systems with
-non-preemptible (``CONFIG_PREEMPT=n``) kernels, and thus `tiny
+non-preemptible (``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=n``) kernels, and thus `tiny
RCU <https://lore.kernel.org/r/20090113221724.GA15307@linux.vnet.ibm.com>`__
was born. Josh Triplett has since taken over the small-memory banner
with his `Linux kernel tinification <https://tiny.wiki.kernel.org/>`__
Implementations of RCU for which rcu_read_lock() and
rcu_read_unlock() generate no code, such as Linux-kernel RCU when
-``CONFIG_PREEMPT=n``, can be nested arbitrarily deeply. After all, there
+``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=n``, can be nested arbitrarily deeply. After all, there
is no overhead. Except that if all these instances of
rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() are visible to the
compiler, compilation will eventually fail due to exhausting memory,
However, once the scheduler has spawned its first kthread, this early
boot trick fails for synchronize_rcu() (as well as for
-synchronize_rcu_expedited()) in ``CONFIG_PREEMPT=y`` kernels. The
+synchronize_rcu_expedited()) in ``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y`` kernels. The
reason is that an RCU read-side critical section might be preempted,
which means that a subsequent synchronize_rcu() really does have to
wait for something, as opposed to simply returning immediately.
5 rcu_read_unlock();
6 do_something_with(v, user_v);
-If the compiler did make this transformation in a ``CONFIG_PREEMPT=n`` kernel
+If the compiler did make this transformation in a ``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=n`` kernel
build, and if get_user() did page fault, the result would be a quiescent
state in the middle of an RCU read-side critical section. This misplaced
quiescent state could result in line 4 being a use-after-free access,
patchset <https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/realtime/>`__. The
real-time-latency response requirements are such that the traditional
approach of disabling preemption across RCU read-side critical sections
-is inappropriate. Kernels built with ``CONFIG_PREEMPT=y`` therefore use
+is inappropriate. Kernels built with ``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y`` therefore use
an RCU implementation that allows RCU read-side critical sections to be
preempted. This requirement made its presence known after users made it
clear that an earlier `real-time
RCU read-side critical section can be a quiescent state. Therefore,
*RCU-sched* was created, which follows “classic” RCU in that an
RCU-sched grace period waits for pre-existing interrupt and NMI
-handlers. In kernels built with ``CONFIG_PREEMPT=n``, the RCU and
+handlers. In kernels built with ``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=n``, the RCU and
RCU-sched APIs have identical implementations, while kernels built with
-``CONFIG_PREEMPT=y`` provide a separate implementation for each.
+``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y`` provide a separate implementation for each.
-Note well that in ``CONFIG_PREEMPT=y`` kernels,
+Note well that in ``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y`` kernels,
rcu_read_lock_sched() and rcu_read_unlock_sched() disable and
re-enable preemption, respectively. This means that if there was a
preemption attempt during the RCU-sched read-side critical section,
The tasks-RCU API is quite compact, consisting only of
call_rcu_tasks(), synchronize_rcu_tasks(), and
-rcu_barrier_tasks(). In ``CONFIG_PREEMPT=n`` kernels, trampolines
+rcu_barrier_tasks(). In ``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=n`` kernels, trampolines
cannot be preempted, so these APIs map to call_rcu(),
synchronize_rcu(), and rcu_barrier(), respectively. In
-``CONFIG_PREEMPT=y`` kernels, trampolines can be preempted, and these
+``CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y`` kernels, trampolines can be preempted, and these
three APIs are therefore implemented by separate functions that check
for voluntary context switches.
the rest of the system.
7. As of v4.20, a given kernel implements only one RCU flavor,
- which is RCU-sched for PREEMPT=n and RCU-preempt for PREEMPT=y.
+ which is RCU-sched for PREEMPTION=n and RCU-preempt for PREEMPTION=y.
If the updater uses call_rcu() or synchronize_rcu(),
then the corresponding readers may use rcu_read_lock() and
rcu_read_unlock(), rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh(),
of as a replacement for read-writer locking (among other things), but with
very low-overhead readers that are immune to deadlock, priority inversion,
and unbounded latency. RCU read-side critical sections are delimited
-by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), which, in non-CONFIG_PREEMPT
+by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), which, in non-CONFIG_PREEMPTION
kernels, generate no code whatsoever.
This means that RCU writers are unaware of the presence of concurrent
to smp_call_function() and further to smp_call_function_on_cpu(),
causing this latter to spin until the cross-CPU invocation of
rcu_barrier_func() has completed. This by itself would prevent
- a grace period from completing on non-CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels,
+ a grace period from completing on non-CONFIG_PREEMPTION kernels,
since each CPU must undergo a context switch (or other quiescent
state) before the grace period can complete. However, this is
- of no use in CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels.
+ of no use in CONFIG_PREEMPTION kernels.
Therefore, on_each_cpu() disables preemption across its call
to smp_call_function() and also across the local call to
- A CPU looping with bottom halves disabled.
-- For !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels, a CPU looping anywhere in the kernel
+- For !CONFIG_PREEMPTION kernels, a CPU looping anywhere in the kernel
without invoking schedule(). If the looping in the kernel is
really expected and desirable behavior, you might need to add
some calls to cond_resched().
result in the ``rcu_.*kthread starved for`` console-log message,
which will include additional debugging information.
-- A CPU-bound real-time task in a CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel, which might
+- A CPU-bound real-time task in a CONFIG_PREEMPTION kernel, which might
happen to preempt a low-priority task in the middle of an RCU
read-side critical section. This is especially damaging if
that low-priority task is not permitted to run on any other CPU,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This section presents a "toy" RCU implementation that is based on
"classic RCU". It is also short on performance (but only for updates) and
-on features such as hotplug CPU and the ability to run in CONFIG_PREEMPT
+on features such as hotplug CPU and the ability to run in CONFIG_PREEMPTION
kernels. The definitions of rcu_dereference() and rcu_assign_pointer()
are the same as those shown in the preceding section, so they are omitted.
::
Quick Quiz #3:
If it is illegal to block in an RCU read-side
critical section, what the heck do you do in
- PREEMPT_RT, where normal spinlocks can block???
+ CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, where normal spinlocks can block???
:ref:`Answers to Quick Quiz <8_whatisRCU>`
overhead is **negative**.
Answer:
- Imagine a single-CPU system with a non-CONFIG_PREEMPT
+ Imagine a single-CPU system with a non-CONFIG_PREEMPTION
kernel where a routing table is used by process-context
code, but can be updated by irq-context code (for example,
by an "ICMP REDIRECT" packet). The usual way of handling
Quick Quiz #3:
If it is illegal to block in an RCU read-side
critical section, what the heck do you do in
- PREEMPT_RT, where normal spinlocks can block???
+ CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, where normal spinlocks can block???
Answer:
- Just as PREEMPT_RT permits preemption of spinlock
+ Just as CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT permits preemption of spinlock
critical sections, it permits preemption of RCU
read-side critical sections. It also permits
spinlocks blocking while in RCU read-side critical
projects / linux-2.6-microblaze.git / commitdiff