Merge branch 'origin' into devel-stable

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/mach-mx2/devices.c
	arch/arm/mach-mx2/devices.h
	sound/soc/pxa/pxa-ssp.c

1 files changed, 126 insertions, 82 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
index 51525a30e8b..cbc180f9019 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
@@ -8,13 +8,12 @@ would cause.  This list is based on experiences reviewing such patches
 over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 
 0.	Is RCU being applied to a read-mostly situation?  If the data
-	structure is updated more than about 10% of the time, then
-	you should strongly consider some other approach, unless
-	detailed performance measurements show that RCU is nonetheless
-	the right tool for the job.  Yes, you might think of RCU
-	as simply cutting overhead off of the readers and imposing it
-	on the writers.  That is exactly why normal uses of RCU will
-	do much more reading than updating.
+	structure is updated more than about 10% of the time, then you
+	should strongly consider some other approach, unless detailed
+	performance measurements show that RCU is nonetheless the right
+	tool for the job.  Yes, RCU does reduce read-side overhead by
+	increasing write-side overhead, which is exactly why normal uses
+	of RCU will do much more reading than updating.
 
 	Another exception is where performance is not an issue, and RCU
 	provides a simpler implementation.  An example of this situation
@@ -35,13 +34,13 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 
 	If you choose #b, be prepared to describe how you have handled
 	memory barriers on weakly ordered machines (pretty much all of
-	them -- even x86 allows reads to be reordered), and be prepared
-	to explain why this added complexity is worthwhile.  If you
-	choose #c, be prepared to explain how this single task does not
-	become a major bottleneck on big multiprocessor machines (for
-	example, if the task is updating information relating to itself
-	that other tasks can read, there by definition can be no
-	bottleneck).
+	them -- even x86 allows later loads to be reordered to precede
+	earlier stores), and be prepared to explain why this added
+	complexity is worthwhile.  If you choose #c, be prepared to
+	explain how this single task does not become a major bottleneck on
+	big multiprocessor machines (for example, if the task is updating
+	information relating to itself that other tasks can read, there
+	by definition can be no bottleneck).
 
 2.	Do the RCU read-side critical sections make proper use of
 	rcu_read_lock() and friends?  These primitives are needed
@@ -51,8 +50,10 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	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()
-	or by the appropriate update-side lock.
+	pointer must be covered by rcu_read_lock(), rcu_read_lock_bh(),
+	rcu_read_lock_sched(), or by the appropriate update-side lock.
+	Disabling of preemption can serve as rcu_read_lock_sched(), but
+	is less readable.
 
 3.	Does the update code tolerate concurrent accesses?
 
@@ -62,25 +63,27 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	of ways to handle this concurrency, depending on the situation:
 
 	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.
+		primitives to add, remove, and replace elements on
+		an RCU-protected list.	Alternatively, use the other
+		RCU-protected data structures 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.
+		the readers refrain from accessing can be guarded by
+		some other lock acquired only by updaters, if desired.
 
 		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.
+		pointer updates to properly aligned fields will
+		appear atomic, as will individual atomic primitives.
+		Sequences of perations performed under a lock will -not-
+		appear to be atomic to RCU readers, nor will sequences
+		of multiple atomic primitives.
 
 		This can work, but is starting to get a bit tricky.
 
@@ -98,9 +101,9 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 		a new structure containing updated values.
 
 4.	Weakly ordered CPUs pose special challenges.  Almost all CPUs
-	are weakly ordered -- even i386 CPUs allow reads to be reordered.
-	RCU code must take all of the following measures to prevent
-	memory-corruption problems:
+	are weakly ordered -- even x86 CPUs allow later loads to be
+	reordered to precede earlier stores.  RCU code must take all of
+	the following measures to prevent memory-corruption problems:
 
 	a.	Readers must maintain proper ordering of their memory
 		accesses.  The rcu_dereference() primitive ensures that
@@ -113,14 +116,25 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 		The rcu_dereference() primitive is also an excellent
 		documentation aid, letting the person reading the code
 		know exactly which pointers are protected by RCU.
-
-		The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the various
-		"_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such as the
-		list_for_each_entry_rcu().  Note that it is perfectly
-		legal (if redundant) for update-side code to use
-		rcu_dereference() and the "_rcu()" list-traversal
-		primitives.  This is particularly useful in code
-		that is common to readers and updaters.
+		Please note that compilers can also reorder code, and
+		they are becoming increasingly aggressive about doing
+		just that.  The rcu_dereference() primitive therefore
+		also prevents destructive compiler optimizations.
+
+		The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the
+		various "_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such
+		as the list_for_each_entry_rcu().  Note that it is
+		perfectly legal (if redundant) for update-side code to
+		use rcu_dereference() and the "_rcu()" list-traversal
+		primitives.  This is particularly useful in code that
+		is common to readers and updaters.  However, lockdep
+		will complain if you access rcu_dereference() outside
+		of an RCU read-side critical section.  See lockdep.txt
+		to learn what to do about this.
+
+		Of course, neither rcu_dereference() nor the "_rcu()"
+		list-traversal primitives can substitute for a good
+		concurrency design coordinating among multiple updaters.
 
 	b.	If the list macros are being used, the list_add_tail_rcu()
 		and list_add_rcu() primitives must be used in order
@@ -135,11 +149,14 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 		readers.  Similarly, if the hlist macros are being used,
 		the hlist_del_rcu() primitive is required.
 
-		The list_replace_rcu() primitive may be used to
-		replace an old structure with a new one in an
-		RCU-protected list.
+		The list_replace_rcu() and hlist_replace_rcu() primitives
+		may be used to replace an old structure with a new one
+		in their respective types of RCU-protected lists.
+
+	d.	Rules similar to (4b) and (4c) apply to the "hlist_nulls"
+		type of RCU-protected linked lists.
 
-	d.	Updates must ensure that initialization of a given
+	e.	Updates must ensure that initialization of a given
 		structure happens before pointers to that structure are
 		publicized.  Use the rcu_assign_pointer() primitive
 		when publicizing a pointer to a structure that can
@@ -151,16 +168,31 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	it cannot block.
 
 6.	Since synchronize_rcu() can block, it cannot be called from
-	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().  If the updater
-	uses call_rcu_sched(), then the corresponding readers must
-	disable preemption.  Mixing things up will result in confusion
-	and broken kernels.
+	any sort of irq context.  The same rule applies for
+	synchronize_rcu_bh(), synchronize_sched(), synchronize_srcu(),
+	synchronize_rcu_expedited(), synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited(),
+	synchronize_sched_expedite(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited().
+
+	The expedited forms of these primitives have the same semantics
+	as the non-expedited forms, but expediting is both expensive
+	and unfriendly to real-time workloads.	Use of the expedited
+	primitives should be restricted to rare configuration-change
+	operations that would not normally be undertaken while a real-time
+	workload is running.
+
+7.	If the updater uses call_rcu() or synchronize_rcu(), then the
+	corresponding readers must use rcu_read_lock() and
+	rcu_read_unlock().  If the updater uses call_rcu_bh() or
+	synchronize_rcu_bh(), then the corresponding readers must
+	use rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh().  If the
+	updater uses call_rcu_sched() or synchronize_sched(), then
+	the corresponding readers must disable preemption, possibly
+	by calling rcu_read_lock_sched() and rcu_read_unlock_sched().
+	If the updater uses synchronize_srcu(), the the corresponding
+	readers must use srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock(),
+	and with the same srcu_struct.	The rules for the expedited
+	primitives are the same as for their non-expedited counterparts.
+	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()
@@ -212,6 +244,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	e.	Periodically invoke synchronize_rcu(), permitting a limited
 		number of updates per grace period.
 
+	The same cautions apply to call_rcu_bh() and call_rcu_sched().
+
 9.	All RCU list-traversal primitives, which include
 	rcu_dereference(), list_for_each_entry_rcu(),
 	list_for_each_continue_rcu(), and list_for_each_safe_rcu(),
@@ -219,7 +253,9 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	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().
+	rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh(), in which case
+	the matching rcu_dereference() primitive must be used in order
+	to keep lockdep happy, in this case, rcu_dereference_bh().
 
 	The reason that it is permissible to use RCU list-traversal
 	primitives when the update-side lock is held is that doing so
@@ -229,7 +265,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 10.	Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section,
 	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.
+	will break Alpha, cause aggressive compilers to generate bad code,
+	and confuse people trying to read your code.
 
 11.	Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until
 	all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side
@@ -239,15 +276,21 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	rcu_read_lock()-protected read-side critical sections, do -not-
 	use synchronize_rcu().
 
-	If you want to wait for some of these other things, you might
-	instead need to use synchronize_irq() or synchronize_sched().
+	Similarly, disabling preemption is not an acceptable substitute
+	for rcu_read_lock().  Code that attempts to use preemption
+	disabling where it should be using rcu_read_lock() will break
+	in real-time kernel builds.
+
+	If you want to wait for interrupt handlers, NMI handlers, and
+	code under the influence of preempt_disable(), you instead
+	need to use synchronize_irq() or synchronize_sched().
 
 12.	Any lock acquired by an RCU callback must be acquired elsewhere
 	with softirq disabled, e.g., via spin_lock_irqsave(),
 	spin_lock_bh(), etc.  Failing to disable irq on a given
-	acquisition of that lock will result in deadlock as soon as the
-	RCU callback happens to interrupt that acquisition's critical
-	section.
+	acquisition of that lock will result in deadlock as soon as
+	the RCU softirq handler happens to run your RCU callback while
+	interrupting that acquisition's critical section.
 
 13.	RCU callbacks can be and are executed in parallel.  In many cases,
 	the callback code simply wrappers around kfree(), so that this
@@ -265,29 +308,30 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	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
-	section (demarked by srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock()),
-	hence the "SRCU": "sleepable RCU".  Please note that if you
-	don't need to sleep in read-side critical sections, you should
-	be using RCU rather than SRCU, because RCU is almost always
-	faster and easier to use than is SRCU.
+14.	SRCU (srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock(), srcu_dereference(),
+	synchronize_srcu(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited()) may only
+	be invoked from process context.  Unlike other forms of RCU, it
+	-is- permissible to block in an SRCU read-side critical section
+	(demarked by srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock()), hence the
+	"SRCU": "sleepable RCU".  Please note that if you don't need
+	to sleep in read-side critical sections, you should be using
+	RCU rather than SRCU, because RCU is almost always faster and
+	easier to use than is SRCU.
 
 	Also unlike other forms of RCU, explicit initialization
 	and cleanup is required via init_srcu_struct() and
 	cleanup_srcu_struct().	These are passed a "struct srcu_struct"
 	that defines the scope of a given SRCU domain.	Once initialized,
 	the srcu_struct is passed to srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock()
-	and synchronize_srcu().  A given synchronize_srcu() waits only
-	for SRCU read-side critical sections governed by srcu_read_lock()
-	and srcu_read_unlock() calls that have been passd the same
-	srcu_struct.  This property is what makes sleeping read-side
-	critical sections tolerable -- a given subsystem delays only
-	its own updates, not those of other subsystems using SRCU.
-	Therefore, SRCU is less prone to OOM the system than RCU would
-	be if RCU's read-side critical sections were permitted to
-	sleep.
+	synchronize_srcu(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited().  A given
+	synchronize_srcu() waits only for SRCU read-side critical
+	sections governed by srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock()
+	calls that have been passed the same srcu_struct.  This property
+	is what makes sleeping read-side critical sections tolerable --
+	a given subsystem delays only its own updates, not those of other
+	subsystems using SRCU.	Therefore, SRCU is less prone to OOM the
+	system than RCU would be if RCU's read-side critical sections
+	were permitted to sleep.
 
 	The ability to sleep in read-side critical sections does not
 	come for free.	First, corresponding srcu_read_lock() and
@@ -311,12 +355,12 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	destructive operation, and -only- -then- invoke call_rcu(),
 	synchronize_rcu(), or friends.
 
-	Because these primitives only wait for pre-existing readers,
-	it is the caller's responsibility to guarantee safety to
-	any subsequent readers.
+	Because these primitives only wait for pre-existing readers, it
+	is the caller's responsibility to guarantee that any subsequent
+	readers will execute safely.
 
-16.	The various RCU read-side primitives do -not- contain memory
-	barriers.  The CPU (and in some cases, the compiler) is free
-	to reorder code into and out of RCU read-side critical sections.
-	It is the responsibility of the RCU update-side primitives to
-	deal with this.
+16.	The various RCU read-side primitives do -not- necessarily contain
+	memory barriers.  You should therefore plan for the CPU
+	and the compiler to freely reorder code into and out of RCU
+	read-side critical sections.  It is the responsibility of the
+	RCU update-side primitives to deal with this.