From d0b2f91bede3bd5e3d24dd6803e56eee959c1797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: André Fabian Silva Delgado Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:10:27 -0300 Subject: Linux-libre 4.8.2-gnu --- .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+) (limited to 'Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements') diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html index e7e24b3e8..ece410f40 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html @@ -2391,6 +2391,41 @@ and RCU_NONIDLE() on the other while inspecting idle-loop code. Steven Rostedt supplied _rcuidle event tracing, which is used quite heavily in the idle loop. +However, there are some restrictions on the code placed within +RCU_NONIDLE(): + +
    +
  1. Blocking is prohibited. + In practice, this is not a serious restriction given that idle + tasks are prohibited from blocking to begin with. +
  2. Although nesting RCU_NONIDLE() is permited, they cannot + nest indefinitely deeply. + However, given that they can be nested on the order of a million + deep, even on 32-bit systems, this should not be a serious + restriction. + This nesting limit would probably be reached long after the + compiler OOMed or the stack overflowed. +
  3. Any code path that enters RCU_NONIDLE() must sequence + out of that same RCU_NONIDLE(). + For example, the following is grossly illegal: + +
    +
    + 1     RCU_NONIDLE({
    + 2       do_something();
    + 3       goto bad_idea;  /* BUG!!! */
    + 4       do_something_else();});
    + 5   bad_idea:
    +	
    +
    + +

    + It is just as illegal to transfer control into the middle of + RCU_NONIDLE()'s argument. + Yes, in theory, you could transfer in as long as you also + transferred out, but in practice you could also expect to get sharply + worded review comments. +

It is similarly socially unacceptable to interrupt an -- cgit v1.2.3-54-g00ecf