Merge commit 'origin/master'

Manual merge of:

	arch/powerpc/Kconfig
	arch/powerpc/kernel/stacktrace.c
	arch/powerpc/mm/slice.c
	arch/ppc/kernel/smp.c

Documentation/IRQ-affinity.txt

@@ -1,17 +1,26 @@
+ChangeLog:
+	Started by Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
+	Update by Max Krasnyansky <[email protected]>
 
-SMP IRQ affinity, started by Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
-
+SMP IRQ affinity
 
 /proc/irq/IRQ#/smp_affinity specifies which target CPUs are permitted
 for a given IRQ source. It's a bitmask of allowed CPUs. It's not allowed
 to turn off all CPUs, and if an IRQ controller does not support IRQ
 affinity then the value will not change from the default 0xffffffff.
 
+/proc/irq/default_smp_affinity specifies default affinity mask that applies
+to all non-active IRQs. Once IRQ is allocated/activated its affinity bitmask
+will be set to the default mask. It can then be changed as described above.
+Default mask is 0xffffffff.
+
 Here is an example of restricting IRQ44 (eth1) to CPU0-3 then restricting
-the IRQ to CPU4-7 (this is an 8-CPU SMP box):
+it to CPU4-7 (this is an 8-CPU SMP box):
 
+[root@moon 44]# cd /proc/irq/44
 [root@moon 44]# cat smp_affinity
 ffffffff
+
 [root@moon 44]# echo 0f > smp_affinity
 [root@moon 44]# cat smp_affinity
 0000000f
@@ -21,17 +30,27 @@ PING hell (195.4.7.3): 56 data bytes
 --- hell ping statistics ---
 6029 packets transmitted, 6027 packets received, 0% packet loss
 round-trip min/avg/max = 0.1/0.1/0.4 ms
-[root@moon 44]# cat /proc/interrupts | grep 44:
- 44:          0       1785       1785       1783       1783          1
-1          0   IO-APIC-level  eth1
+[root@moon 44]# cat /proc/interrupts | grep 'CPU\|44:'
+           CPU0       CPU1       CPU2       CPU3      CPU4       CPU5        CPU6       CPU7
+ 44:       1068       1785       1785       1783         0          0           0         0    IO-APIC-level  eth1
+
+As can be seen from the line above IRQ44 was delivered only to the first four
+processors (0-3).
+Now lets restrict that IRQ to CPU(4-7).
+
 [root@moon 44]# echo f0 > smp_affinity
+[root@moon 44]# cat smp_affinity
+000000f0
 [root@moon 44]# ping -f h
 PING hell (195.4.7.3): 56 data bytes
 ..
 --- hell ping statistics ---
 2779 packets transmitted, 2777 packets received, 0% packet loss
 round-trip min/avg/max = 0.1/0.5/585.4 ms
-[root@moon 44]# cat /proc/interrupts | grep 44:
- 44:       1068       1785       1785       1784       1784       1069       1070       1069   IO-APIC-level  eth1
-[root@moon 44]#
+[root@moon 44]# cat /proc/interrupts |  'CPU\|44:'
+           CPU0       CPU1       CPU2       CPU3      CPU4       CPU5        CPU6       CPU7
+ 44:       1068       1785       1785       1783      1784       1069        1070       1069   IO-APIC-level  eth1
+
+This time around IRQ44 was delivered only to the last four processors.
+i.e counters for the CPU0-3 did not change.
 

Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.txt

@@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ Since NMI handlers disable preemption, synchronize_sched() is guaranteed
 not to return until all ongoing NMI handlers exit.  It is therefore safe
 to free up the handler's data as soon as synchronize_sched() returns.
 
+Important note: for this to work, the architecture in question must
+invoke irq_enter() and irq_exit() on NMI entry and exit, respectively.
+
 
 Answer to Quick Quiz
 

Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt

@@ -52,6 +52,10 @@ of each iteration.  Unfortunately, chaotic relaxation requires highly
 structured data, such as the matrices used in scientific programs, and
 is thus inapplicable to most data structures in operating-system kernels.
 
+In 1992, Henry (now Alexia) Massalin completed a dissertation advising
+parallel programmers to defer processing when feasible to simplify
+synchronization.  RCU makes extremely heavy use of this advice.
+
 In 1993, Jacobson [Jacobson93] verbally described what is perhaps the
 simplest deferred-free technique: simply waiting a fixed amount of time
 before freeing blocks awaiting deferred free.  Jacobson did not describe
@@ -138,6 +142,13 @@ blocking in read-side critical sections appeared [PaulEMcKenney2006c],
 Robert Olsson described an RCU-protected trie-hash combination
 [RobertOlsson2006a].
 
+2007 saw the journal version of the award-winning RCU paper from 2006
+[ThomasEHart2007a], as well as a paper demonstrating use of Promela
+and Spin to mechanically verify an optimization to Oleg Nesterov's
+QRCU [PaulEMcKenney2007QRCUspin], a design document describing
+preemptible RCU [PaulEMcKenney2007PreemptibleRCU], and the three-part
+LWN "What is RCU?" series [PaulEMcKenney2007WhatIsRCUFundamentally,
+PaulEMcKenney2008WhatIsRCUUsage, and PaulEMcKenney2008WhatIsRCUAPI].
 
 Bibtex Entries
 
@@ -202,6 +213,20 @@ Bibtex Entries
 ,Year="1991"
 }
 
+@phdthesis{HMassalinPhD
+,author="H. Massalin"
+,title="Synthesis: An Efficient Implementation of Fundamental Operating
+System Services"
+,school="Columbia University"
+,address="New York, NY"
+,year="1992"
+,annotation="
+	Mondo optimizing compiler.
+	Wait-free stuff.
+	Good advice: defer work to avoid synchronization.
+"
+}
+
 @unpublished{Jacobson93
 ,author="Van Jacobson"
 ,title="Avoid Read-Side Locking Via Delayed Free"
@@ -635,3 +660,86 @@ Revised:
 "
 }
 
+@unpublished{PaulEMcKenney2007PreemptibleRCU
+,Author="Paul E. McKenney"
+,Title="The design of preemptible read-copy-update"
+,month="October"
+,day="8"
+,year="2007"
+,note="Available:
+\url{http://lwn.net/Articles/253651/}
+[Viewed October 25, 2007]"
+,annotation="
+	LWN article describing the design of preemptible RCU.
+"
+}
+
+########################################################################
+#
+#	"What is RCU?" LWN series.
+#
+
+@unpublished{PaulEMcKenney2007WhatIsRCUFundamentally
+,Author="Paul E. McKenney and Jonathan Walpole"
+,Title="What is {RCU}, Fundamentally?"
+,month="December"
+,day="17"
+,year="2007"
+,note="Available:
+\url{http://lwn.net/Articles/262464/}
+[Viewed December 27, 2007]"
+,annotation="
+	Lays out the three basic components of RCU: (1) publish-subscribe,
+	(2) wait for pre-existing readers to complete, and (2) maintain
+	multiple versions.
+"
+}
+
+@unpublished{PaulEMcKenney2008WhatIsRCUUsage
+,Author="Paul E. McKenney"
+,Title="What is {RCU}? Part 2: Usage"
+,month="January"
+,day="4"
+,year="2008"
+,note="Available:
+\url{http://lwn.net/Articles/263130/}
+[Viewed January 4, 2008]"
+,annotation="
+	Lays out six uses of RCU:
+	1. RCU is a Reader-Writer Lock Replacement
+	2. RCU is a Restricted Reference-Counting Mechanism
+	3. RCU is a Bulk Reference-Counting Mechanism
+	4. RCU is a Poor Man's Garbage Collector
+	5. RCU is a Way of Providing Existence Guarantees
+	6. RCU is a Way of Waiting for Things to Finish 
+"
+}
+
+@unpublished{PaulEMcKenney2008WhatIsRCUAPI
+,Author="Paul E. McKenney"
+,Title="{RCU} part 3: the {RCU} {API}"
+,month="January"
+,day="17"
+,year="2008"
+,note="Available:
+\url{http://lwn.net/Articles/264090/}
+[Viewed January 10, 2008]"
+,annotation="
+	Gives an overview of the Linux-kernel RCU API and a brief annotated RCU
+	bibliography.
+"
+}
+
+@article{DinakarGuniguntala2008IBMSysJ
+,author="D. Guniguntala and P. E. McKenney and J. Triplett and J. Walpole"
+,title="The read-copy-update mechanism for supporting real-time applications on shared-memory multiprocessor systems with {Linux}"
+,Year="2008"
+,Month="April"
+,journal="IBM Systems Journal"
+,volume="47"
+,number="2"
+,pages="@@-@@"
+,annotation="
+	RCU, realtime RCU, sleepable RCU, performance.
+"
+}

Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt

@@ -13,10 +13,13 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	detailed performance measurements show that RCU is nonetheless
 	the right tool for the job.
 
-	The other exception would be where performance is not an issue,
-	and RCU provides a simpler implementation.  An example of this
-	situation is the dynamic NMI code in the Linux 2.6 kernel,
-	at least on architectures where NMIs are rare.
+	Another exception is where performance is not an issue, and RCU
+	provides a simpler implementation.  An example of this situation
+	is the dynamic NMI code in the Linux 2.6 kernel, at least on
+	architectures where NMIs are rare.
+
+	Yet another exception is where the low real-time latency of RCU's
+	read-side primitives is critically important.
 
 1.	Does the update code have proper mutual exclusion?
 
@@ -39,9 +42,10 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 
 2.	Do the RCU read-side critical sections make proper use of
 	rcu_read_lock() and friends?  These primitives are needed
-	to suppress preemption (or bottom halves, in the case of
-	rcu_read_lock_bh()) in the read-side critical sections,
-	and are also an excellent aid to readability.
+	to prevent grace periods from ending prematurely, which
+	could result in data being unceremoniously freed out from
+	under your read-side code, which can greatly increase the
+	actuarial risk of your kernel.
 
 	As a rough rule of thumb, any dereference of an RCU-protected
 	pointer must be covered by rcu_read_lock() or rcu_read_lock_bh()
@@ -54,15 +58,30 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	be running while updates are in progress.  There are a number
 	of ways to handle this concurrency, depending on the situation:
 
-	a.	Make updates appear atomic to readers.  For example,
+	a.	Use the RCU variants of the list and hlist update
+		primitives to add, remove, and replace elements on an
+		RCU-protected list.  Alternatively, use the RCU-protected
+		trees that have been added to the Linux kernel.
+
+		This is almost always the best approach.
+
+	b.	Proceed as in (a) above, but also maintain per-element
+		locks (that are acquired by both readers and writers)
+		that guard per-element state.  Of course, fields that
+		the readers refrain from accessing can be guarded by the
+		update-side lock.
+
+		This works quite well, also.
+
+	c.	Make updates appear atomic to readers.  For example,
 		pointer updates to properly aligned fields will appear
 		atomic, as will individual atomic primitives.  Operations
 		performed under a lock and sequences of multiple atomic
 		primitives will -not- appear to be atomic.
 
-		This is almost always the best approach.
+		This can work, but is starting to get a bit tricky.
 
-	b.	Carefully order the updates and the reads so that
+	d.	Carefully order the updates and the reads so that
 		readers see valid data at all phases of the update.
 		This is often more difficult than it sounds, especially
 		given modern CPUs' tendency to reorder memory references.
@@ -123,18 +142,22 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 		when publicizing a pointer to a structure that can
 		be traversed by an RCU read-side critical section.
 
-5.	If call_rcu(), or a related primitive such as call_rcu_bh(),
-	is used, the callback function must be written to be called
-	from softirq context.  In particular, it cannot block.
+5.	If call_rcu(), or a related primitive such as call_rcu_bh() or
+	call_rcu_sched(), is used, the callback function must be
+	written to be called from softirq context.  In particular,
+	it cannot block.
 
 6.	Since synchronize_rcu() can block, it cannot be called from
-	any sort of irq context.
+	any sort of irq context.  Ditto for synchronize_sched() and
+	synchronize_srcu().
 
 7.	If the updater uses call_rcu(), then the corresponding readers
 	must use rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock().  If the updater
 	uses call_rcu_bh(), then the corresponding readers must use
-	rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh().  Mixing things up
-	will result in confusion and broken kernels.
+	rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh().  If the updater
+	uses call_rcu_sched(), then the corresponding readers must
+	disable preemption.  Mixing things up will result in confusion
+	and broken kernels.
 
 	One exception to this rule: rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
 	may be substituted for rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh()
@@ -143,9 +166,9 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	such cases is a must, of course!  And the jury is still out on
 	whether the increased speed is worth it.
 
-8.	Although synchronize_rcu() is a bit slower than is call_rcu(),
-	it usually results in simpler code.  So, unless update
-	performance is critically important or the updaters cannot block,
+8.	Although synchronize_rcu() is slower than is call_rcu(), it
+	usually results in simpler code.  So, unless update performance
+	is critically important or the updaters cannot block,
 	synchronize_rcu() should be used in preference to call_rcu().
 
 	An especially important property of the synchronize_rcu()
@@ -187,23 +210,23 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 		number of updates per grace period.
 
 9.	All RCU list-traversal primitives, which include
-	list_for_each_rcu(), list_for_each_entry_rcu(),
+	rcu_dereference(), list_for_each_rcu(), list_for_each_entry_rcu(),
 	list_for_each_continue_rcu(), and list_for_each_safe_rcu(),
-	must be within an RCU read-side critical section.  RCU
+	must be either within an RCU read-side critical section or
+	must be protected by appropriate update-side locks.  RCU
 	read-side critical sections are delimited by rcu_read_lock()
 	and rcu_read_unlock(), or by similar primitives such as
 	rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh().
 
-	Use of the _rcu() list-traversal primitives outside of an
-	RCU read-side critical section causes no harm other than
-	a slight performance degradation on Alpha CPUs.  It can
-	also be quite helpful in reducing code bloat when common
-	code is shared between readers and updaters.
+	The reason that it is permissible to use RCU list-traversal
+	primitives when the update-side lock is held is that doing so
+	can be quite helpful in reducing code bloat when common code is
+	shared between readers and updaters.
 
 10.	Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section,
-	you -must- use the "_rcu()" variants of the list macros.
-	Failing to do so will break Alpha and confuse people reading
-	your code.
+	and you don't hold the appropriate update-side lock, you -must-
+	use the "_rcu()" variants of the list macros.  Failing to do so
+	will break Alpha and confuse people reading your code.
 
 11.	Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until
 	all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side
@@ -230,6 +253,14 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	must use whatever locking or other synchronization is required
 	to safely access and/or modify that data structure.
 
+	RCU callbacks are -usually- executed on the same CPU that executed
+	the corresponding call_rcu(), call_rcu_bh(), or call_rcu_sched(),
+	but are by -no- means guaranteed to be.  For example, if a given
+	CPU goes offline while having an RCU callback pending, then that
+	RCU callback will execute on some surviving CPU.  (If this was
+	not the case, a self-spawning RCU callback would prevent the
+	victim CPU from ever going offline.)
+
 14.	SRCU (srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock(), and synchronize_srcu())
 	may only be invoked from process context.  Unlike other forms of
 	RCU, it -is- permissible to block in an SRCU read-side critical