On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 05:02:12PM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-03-25 13:27:49 [+0100], Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > The documentation of rw_semaphores is wrong as it claims that the non-owner
> > reader release is not supported by RT. That's just history biased memory
> > distortion.
> >
> > Split the 'Owner semantics' section up and add separate sections for
> > semaphore and rw_semaphore to reflect reality.
> >
> > Aside of that the following updates are done:
> >
> > - Add pseudo code to document the spinlock state preserving mechanism on
> > PREEMPT_RT
> >
> > - Wordsmith the bitspinlock and lock nesting sections
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Paul McKenney <paul...@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul McKenney <paul...@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> Acked-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de>
>
> > --- a/Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst
> …
> > +rw_semaphore
> > +============
> > +
> > +rw_semaphore is a multiple readers and single writer lock mechanism.
> > +
> > +On non-PREEMPT_RT kernels the implementation is fair, thus preventing
> > +writer starvation.
> > +
> > +rw_semaphore complies by default with the strict owner semantics, but there
> > +exist special-purpose interfaces that allow non-owner release for readers.
> > +These work independent of the kernel configuration.
>
> This reads funny, could be my English. "This works independent …" maybe?
The "These" refers to "interfaces", which is plural, so "These" rather
than "This". But yes, it is a bit awkward, because you have to skip
back past "readers", "release", and "non-owner" to find the implied
subject of that last sentence.
So how about this instead, making the implied subject explicit?
rw_semaphore complies by default with the strict owner semantics, but there
exist special-purpose interfaces that allow non-owner release for readers.
These interfaces work independent of the kernel configuration.
Thanx, Paul
