Merge tag 'rcu.2022.12.02a' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu

Pull RCU updates from Paul McKenney:

 - Documentation updates. This is the second in a series from an ongoing
   review of the RCU documentation.

 - Miscellaneous fixes.

 - Introduce a default-off Kconfig option that depends on RCU_NOCB_CPU
   that, on CPUs mentioned in the nohz_full or rcu_nocbs boot-argument
   CPU lists, causes call_rcu() to introduce delays.

   These delays result in significant power savings on nearly idle
   Android and ChromeOS systems. These savings range from a few percent
   to more than ten percent.

   This series also includes several commits that change call_rcu() to a
   new call_rcu_hurry() function that avoids these delays in a few
   cases, for example, where timely wakeups are required. Several of
   these are outside of RCU and thus have acks and reviews from the
   relevant maintainers.

 - Create an srcu_read_lock_nmisafe() and an srcu_read_unlock_nmisafe()
   for architectures that support NMIs, but which do not provide
   NMI-safe this_cpu_inc(). These NMI-safe SRCU functions are required
   by the upcoming lockless printk() work by John Ogness et al.

 - Changes providing minor but important increases in torture test
   coverage for the new RCU polled-grace-period APIs.

 - Changes to torturescript that avoid redundant kernel builds, thus
   providing about a 30% speedup for the torture.sh acceptance test.

* tag 'rcu.2022.12.02a' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu: (49 commits)
  net: devinet: Reduce refcount before grace period
  net: Use call_rcu_hurry() for dst_release()
  workqueue: Make queue_rcu_work() use call_rcu_hurry()
  percpu-refcount: Use call_rcu_hurry() for atomic switch
  scsi/scsi_error: Use call_rcu_hurry() instead of call_rcu()
  rcu/rcutorture: Use call_rcu_hurry() where needed
  rcu/rcuscale: Use call_rcu_hurry() for async reader test
  rcu/sync: Use call_rcu_hurry() instead of call_rcu
  rcuscale: Add laziness and kfree tests
  rcu: Shrinker for lazy rcu
  rcu: Refactor code a bit in rcu_nocb_do_flush_bypass()
  rcu: Make call_rcu() lazy to save power
  rcu: Implement lockdep_rcu_enabled for !CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
  srcu: Debug NMI safety even on archs that don't require it
  srcu: Explain the reason behind the read side critical section on GP start
  srcu: Warn when NMI-unsafe API is used in NMI
  arch/s390: Add ARCH_HAS_NMI_SAFE_THIS_CPU_OPS Kconfig option
  arch/loongarch: Add ARCH_HAS_NMI_SAFE_THIS_CPU_OPS Kconfig option
  rcu: Fix __this_cpu_read() lockdep warning in rcu_force_quiescent_state()
  rcu-tasks: Make grace-period-age message human-readable
  ...

5 files changed, 250 insertions, 338 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst
deleted file mode 100644
index a5f2ff8fc54c..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.rst
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,165 +0,0 @@
-.. _array_rcu_doc:
-
-Using RCU to Protect Read-Mostly Arrays
-=======================================
-
-Although RCU is more commonly used to protect linked lists, it can
-also be used to protect arrays.  Three situations are as follows:
-
-1.  :ref:`Hash Tables <hash_tables>`
-
-2.  :ref:`Static Arrays <static_arrays>`
-
-3.  :ref:`Resizable Arrays <resizable_arrays>`
-
-Each of these three situations involves an RCU-protected pointer to an
-array that is separately indexed.  It might be tempting to consider use
-of RCU to instead protect the index into an array, however, this use
-case is **not** supported.  The problem with RCU-protected indexes into
-arrays is that compilers can play way too many optimization games with
-integers, which means that the rules governing handling of these indexes
-are far more trouble than they are worth.  If RCU-protected indexes into
-arrays prove to be particularly valuable (which they have not thus far),
-explicit cooperation from the compiler will be required to permit them
-to be safely used.
-
-That aside, each of the three RCU-protected pointer situations are
-described in the following sections.
-
-.. _hash_tables:
-
-Situation 1: Hash Tables
-------------------------
-
-Hash tables are often implemented as an array, where each array entry
-has a linked-list hash chain.  Each hash chain can be protected by RCU
-as described in listRCU.rst.  This approach also applies to other
-array-of-list situations, such as radix trees.
-
-.. _static_arrays:
-
-Situation 2: Static Arrays
---------------------------
-
-Static arrays, where the data (rather than a pointer to the data) is
-located in each array element, and where the array is never resized,
-have not been used with RCU.  Rik van Riel recommends using seqlock in
-this situation, which would also have minimal read-side overhead as long
-as updates are rare.
-
-Quick Quiz:
-		Why is it so important that updates be rare when using seqlock?
-
-:ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz <answer_quick_quiz_seqlock>`
-
-.. _resizable_arrays:
-
-Situation 3: Resizable Arrays
-------------------------------
-
-Use of RCU for resizable arrays is demonstrated by the grow_ary()
-function formerly used by the System V IPC code.  The array is used
-to map from semaphore, message-queue, and shared-memory IDs to the data
-structure that represents the corresponding IPC construct.  The grow_ary()
-function does not acquire any locks; instead its caller must hold the
-ids->sem semaphore.
-
-The grow_ary() function, shown below, does some limit checks, allocates a
-new ipc_id_ary, copies the old to the new portion of the new, initializes
-the remainder of the new, updates the ids->entries pointer to point to
-the new array, and invokes ipc_rcu_putref() to free up the old array.
-Note that rcu_assign_pointer() is used to update the ids->entries pointer,
-which includes any memory barriers required on whatever architecture
-you are running on::
-
-	static int grow_ary(struct ipc_ids* ids, int newsize)
-	{
-		struct ipc_id_ary* new;
-		struct ipc_id_ary* old;
-		int i;
-		int size = ids->entries->size;
-
-		if(newsize > IPCMNI)
-			newsize = IPCMNI;
-		if(newsize <= size)
-			return newsize;
-
-		new = ipc_rcu_alloc(sizeof(struct kern_ipc_perm *)*newsize +
-				    sizeof(struct ipc_id_ary));
-		if(new == NULL)
-			return size;
-		new->size = newsize;
-		memcpy(new->p, ids->entries->p,
-		       sizeof(struct kern_ipc_perm *)*size +
-		       sizeof(struct ipc_id_ary));
-		for(i=size;i<newsize;i++) {
-			new->p[i] = NULL;
-		}
-		old = ids->entries;
-
-		/*
-		 * Use rcu_assign_pointer() to make sure the memcpyed
-		 * contents of the new array are visible before the new
-		 * array becomes visible.
-		 */
-		rcu_assign_pointer(ids->entries, new);
-
-		ipc_rcu_putref(old);
-		return newsize;
-	}
-
-The ipc_rcu_putref() function decrements the array's reference count
-and then, if the reference count has dropped to zero, uses call_rcu()
-to free the array after a grace period has elapsed.
-
-The array is traversed by the ipc_lock() function.  This function
-indexes into the array under the protection of rcu_read_lock(),
-using rcu_dereference() to pick up the pointer to the array so
-that it may later safely be dereferenced -- memory barriers are
-required on the Alpha CPU.  Since the size of the array is stored
-with the array itself, there can be no array-size mismatches, so
-a simple check suffices.  The pointer to the structure corresponding
-to the desired IPC object is placed in "out", with NULL indicating
-a non-existent entry.  After acquiring "out->lock", the "out->deleted"
-flag indicates whether the IPC object is in the process of being
-deleted, and, if not, the pointer is returned::
-
-	struct kern_ipc_perm* ipc_lock(struct ipc_ids* ids, int id)
-	{
-		struct kern_ipc_perm* out;
-		int lid = id % SEQ_MULTIPLIER;
-		struct ipc_id_ary* entries;
-
-		rcu_read_lock();
-		entries = rcu_dereference(ids->entries);
-		if(lid >= entries->size) {
-			rcu_read_unlock();
-			return NULL;
-		}
-		out = entries->p[lid];
-		if(out == NULL) {
-			rcu_read_unlock();
-			return NULL;
-		}
-		spin_lock(&out->lock);
-
-		/* ipc_rmid() may have already freed the ID while ipc_lock
-		 * was spinning: here verify that the structure is still valid
-		 */
-		if (out->deleted) {
-			spin_unlock(&out->lock);
-			rcu_read_unlock();
-			return NULL;
-		}
-		return out;
-	}
-
-.. _answer_quick_quiz_seqlock:
-
-Answer to Quick Quiz:
-	Why is it so important that updates be rare when using seqlock?
-
-	The reason that it is important that updates be rare when
-	using seqlock is that frequent updates can livelock readers.
-	One way to avoid this problem is to assign a seqlock for
-	each array entry rather than to the entire array.
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
index 048c5bc1f813..cc361fb01ed4 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
@@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	for lockless updates.  This does result in the mildly
 	counter-intuitive situation where rcu_read_lock() and
 	rcu_read_unlock() are used to protect updates, however, this
-	approach provides the same potential simplifications that garbage
-	collectors do.
+	approach can provide the same simplifications to certain types
+	of lockless algorithms that garbage collectors do.
 
 1.	Does the update code have proper mutual exclusion?
 
@@ -49,12 +49,12 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	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).  Note that the definition
-	of "large" has changed significantly:  Eight CPUs was "large"
-	in the year 2000, but a hundred CPUs was unremarkable in 2017.
+	explain how this single task does not become a major bottleneck
+	on large systems (for example, if the task is updating information
+	relating to itself that other tasks can read, there by definition
+	can be no bottleneck).	Note that the definition of "large" has
+	changed significantly:	Eight CPUs was "large" in the year 2000,
+	but a hundred CPUs was unremarkable in 2017.
 
 2.	Do the RCU read-side critical sections make proper use of
 	rcu_read_lock() and friends?  These primitives are needed
@@ -97,33 +97,38 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 
 	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
-		some other lock acquired only by updaters, if desired.
+		that guard per-element state.  Fields that the readers
+		refrain from accessing can be guarded by some other lock
+		acquired only by updaters, if desired.
 
-		This works quite well, also.
+		This also works quite well.
 
 	c.	Make updates appear atomic to readers.	For example,
 		pointer updates to properly aligned fields will
 		appear atomic, as will individual atomic primitives.
 		Sequences of operations performed under a lock will *not*
 		appear to be atomic to RCU readers, nor will sequences
-		of multiple atomic primitives.
+		of multiple atomic primitives.	One alternative is to
+		move multiple individual fields to a separate structure,
+		thus solving the multiple-field problem by imposing an
+		additional level of indirection.
 
 		This can work, but is starting to get a bit tricky.
 
-	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.
-		One must usually liberally sprinkle memory barriers
-		(smp_wmb(), smp_rmb(), smp_mb()) through the code,
-		making it difficult to understand and to test.
-
-		It is usually better to group the changing data into
-		a separate structure, so that the change may be made
-		to appear atomic by updating a pointer to reference
-		a new structure containing updated values.
+	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.  One must
+		usually liberally sprinkle memory-ordering operations
+		through the code, making it difficult to understand and
+		to test.  Where it works, it is better to use things
+		like smp_store_release() and smp_load_acquire(), but in
+		some cases the smp_mb() full memory barrier is required.
+
+		As noted earlier, it is usually better to group the
+		changing data into a separate structure, so that the
+		change may be made to appear atomic by updating a pointer
+		to reference a new structure containing updated values.
 
 4.	Weakly ordered CPUs pose special challenges.  Almost all CPUs
 	are weakly ordered -- even x86 CPUs allow later loads to be
@@ -188,26 +193,29 @@ 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 call_srcu() is used, the callback function will
-	be called from softirq context.  In particular, it cannot block.
-	If you need the callback to block, run that code in a workqueue
-	handler scheduled from the callback.  The queue_rcu_work()
-	function does this for you in the case of call_rcu().
+5.	If any of call_rcu(), call_srcu(), call_rcu_tasks(),
+	call_rcu_tasks_rude(), or call_rcu_tasks_trace() is used,
+	the callback function may be invoked from softirq context,
+	and in any case with bottom halves disabled.  In particular,
+	this callback function cannot block.  If you need the callback
+	to block, run that code in a workqueue handler scheduled from
+	the callback.  The queue_rcu_work() function does this for you
+	in the case of call_rcu().
 
 6.	Since synchronize_rcu() can block, it cannot be called
 	from any sort of irq context.  The same rule applies
-	for synchronize_srcu(), synchronize_rcu_expedited(), and
-	synchronize_srcu_expedited().
+	for synchronize_srcu(), synchronize_rcu_expedited(),
+	synchronize_srcu_expedited(), synchronize_rcu_tasks(),
+	synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude(), and synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace().
 
 	The expedited forms of these primitives have the same semantics
-	as the non-expedited forms, but expediting is both expensive and
-	(with the exception of synchronize_srcu_expedited()) 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.
-	However, real-time workloads can use rcupdate.rcu_normal kernel
-	boot parameter to completely disable expedited grace periods,
-	though this might have performance implications.
+	as the non-expedited forms, but expediting is more CPU intensive.
+	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.  Note that
+	IPI-sensitive real-time workloads can use the rcupdate.rcu_normal
+	kernel boot parameter to completely disable expedited grace
+	periods, though this might have performance implications.
 
 	In particular, if you find yourself invoking one of the expedited
 	primitives repeatedly in a loop, please do everyone a favor:
@@ -215,8 +223,9 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	a single non-expedited primitive to cover the entire batch.
 	This will very likely be faster than the loop containing the
 	expedited primitive, and will be much much easier on the rest
-	of the system, especially to real-time workloads running on
-	the rest of the system.
+	of the system, especially to real-time workloads running on the
+	rest of the system.  Alternatively, instead use asynchronous
+	primitives such as call_rcu().
 
 7.	As of v4.20, a given kernel implements only one RCU flavor, which
 	is RCU-sched for PREEMPTION=n and RCU-preempt for PREEMPTION=y.
@@ -239,7 +248,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	the corresponding readers must use rcu_read_lock_trace() and
 	rcu_read_unlock_trace().  If an updater uses call_rcu_tasks_rude()
 	or synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude(), then the corresponding readers
-	must use anything that disables interrupts.
+	must use anything that disables preemption, for example,
+	preempt_disable() and preempt_enable().
 
 	Mixing things up will result in confusion and broken kernels, and
 	has even resulted in an exploitable security issue.  Therefore,
@@ -253,15 +263,16 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	that this usage is safe is that readers can use anything that
 	disables BH when updaters use call_rcu() or synchronize_rcu().
 
-8.	Although synchronize_rcu() is slower than is call_rcu(), it
-	usually results in simpler code.  So, unless update performance is
-	critically important, the updaters cannot block, or the latency of
-	synchronize_rcu() is visible from userspace, synchronize_rcu()
-	should be used in preference to call_rcu().  Furthermore,
-	kfree_rcu() usually results in even simpler code than does
-	synchronize_rcu() without synchronize_rcu()'s multi-millisecond
-	latency.  So please take advantage of kfree_rcu()'s "fire and
-	forget" memory-freeing capabilities where it applies.
+8.	Although synchronize_rcu() is slower than is call_rcu(),
+	it usually results in simpler code.  So, unless update
+	performance is critically important, the updaters cannot block,
+	or the latency of synchronize_rcu() is visible from userspace,
+	synchronize_rcu() should be used in preference to call_rcu().
+	Furthermore, kfree_rcu() and kvfree_rcu() usually result
+	in even simpler code than does synchronize_rcu() without
+	synchronize_rcu()'s multi-millisecond latency.	So please take
+	advantage of kfree_rcu()'s and kvfree_rcu()'s "fire and forget"
+	memory-freeing capabilities where it applies.
 
 	An especially important property of the synchronize_rcu()
 	primitive is that it automatically self-limits: if grace periods
@@ -271,8 +282,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	cases where grace periods are delayed, as failing to do so can
 	result in excessive realtime latencies or even OOM conditions.
 
-	Ways of gaining this self-limiting property when using call_rcu()
-	include:
+	Ways of gaining this self-limiting property when using call_rcu(),
+	kfree_rcu(), or kvfree_rcu() include:
 
 	a.	Keeping a count of the number of data-structure elements
 		used by the RCU-protected data structure, including
@@ -304,18 +315,21 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 		here is that superuser already has lots of ways to crash
 		the machine.
 
-	d.	Periodically invoke synchronize_rcu(), permitting a limited
-		number of updates per grace period.  Better yet, periodically
-		invoke rcu_barrier() to wait for all outstanding callbacks.
+	d.	Periodically invoke rcu_barrier(), permitting a limited
+		number of updates per grace period.
 
-	The same cautions apply to call_srcu() and kfree_rcu().
+	The same cautions apply to call_srcu(), call_rcu_tasks(),
+	call_rcu_tasks_rude(), and call_rcu_tasks_trace().  This is
+	why there is an srcu_barrier(), rcu_barrier_tasks(),
+	rcu_barrier_tasks_rude(), and rcu_barrier_tasks_rude(),
+	respectively.
 
-	Note that although these primitives do take action to avoid memory
-	exhaustion when any given CPU has too many callbacks, a determined
-	user could still exhaust memory.  This is especially the case
-	if a system with a large number of CPUs has been configured to
-	offload all of its RCU callbacks onto a single CPU, or if the
-	system has relatively little free memory.
+	Note that although these primitives do take action to avoid
+	memory exhaustion when any given CPU has too many callbacks,
+	a determined user or administrator can still exhaust memory.
+	This is especially the case if a system with a large number of
+	CPUs has been configured to offload all of its RCU callbacks onto
+	a single CPU, or if the system has relatively little free memory.
 
 9.	All RCU list-traversal primitives, which include
 	rcu_dereference(), list_for_each_entry_rcu(), and
@@ -344,14 +358,14 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	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, cause aggressive compilers to generate bad code,
-	and confuse people trying to read your code.
+	and confuse people trying to understand your code.
 
 11.	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 softirq on a given
-	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.
+	with softirq disabled, e.g., via spin_lock_bh().  Failing to
+	disable softirq on a given 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.
 
 12.	RCU callbacks can be and are executed in parallel.  In many cases,
 	the callback code simply wrappers around kfree(), so that this
@@ -372,7 +386,17 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	for some  real-time workloads, this is the whole point of using
 	the rcu_nocbs= kernel boot parameter.
 
-13.	Unlike other forms of RCU, it *is* permissible to block in an
+	In addition, do not assume that callbacks queued in a given order
+	will be invoked in that order, even if they all are queued on the
+	same CPU.  Furthermore, do not assume that same-CPU callbacks will
+	be invoked serially.  For example, in recent kernels, CPUs can be
+	switched between offloaded and de-offloaded callback invocation,
+	and while a given CPU is undergoing such a switch, its callbacks
+	might be concurrently invoked by that CPU's softirq handler and
+	that CPU's rcuo kthread.  At such times, that CPU's callbacks
+	might be executed both concurrently and out of order.
+
+13.	Unlike most flavors 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
@@ -412,6 +436,12 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	never sends IPIs to other CPUs, so it is easier on
 	real-time workloads than is synchronize_rcu_expedited().
 
+	It is also permissible to sleep in RCU Tasks Trace read-side
+	critical, which are delimited by rcu_read_lock_trace() and
+	rcu_read_unlock_trace().  However, this is a specialized flavor
+	of RCU, and you should not use it without first checking with
+	its current users.  In most cases, you should instead use SRCU.
+
 	Note that rcu_assign_pointer() relates to SRCU just as it does to
 	other forms of RCU, but instead of rcu_dereference() you should
 	use srcu_dereference() in order to avoid lockdep splats.
@@ -442,50 +472,62 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	find problems as follows:
 
 	CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING:
-		check that accesses to RCU-protected data
-		structures are carried out under the proper RCU
-		read-side critical section, while holding the right
-		combination of locks, or whatever other conditions
-		are appropriate.
+		check that accesses to RCU-protected data structures
+		are carried out under the proper RCU read-side critical
+		section, while holding the right combination of locks,
+		or whatever other conditions are appropriate.
 
 	CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD:
-		check that you don't pass the
-		same object to call_rcu() (or friends) before an RCU
-		grace period has elapsed since the last time that you
-		passed that same object to call_rcu() (or friends).
+		check that you don't pass the same object to call_rcu()
+		(or friends) before an RCU grace period has elapsed
+		since the last time that you passed that same object to
+		call_rcu() (or friends).
 
 	__rcu sparse checks:
-		tag the pointer to the RCU-protected data
-		structure with __rcu, and sparse will warn you if you
-		access that pointer without the services of one of the
-		variants of rcu_dereference().
+		tag the pointer to the RCU-protected data structure
+		with __rcu, and sparse will warn you if you access that
+		pointer without the services of one of the variants
+		of rcu_dereference().
 
 	These debugging aids can help you find problems that are
 	otherwise extremely difficult to spot.
 
-17.	If you register a callback using call_rcu() or call_srcu(), and
-	pass in a function defined within a loadable module, then it in
-	necessary to wait for all pending callbacks to be invoked after
-	the last invocation and before unloading that module.  Note that
-	it is absolutely *not* sufficient to wait for a grace period!
-	The current (say) synchronize_rcu() implementation is *not*
-	guaranteed to wait for callbacks registered on other CPUs.
-	Or even on the current CPU if that CPU recently went offline
-	and came back online.
+17.	If you pass a callback function defined within a module to one of
+	call_rcu(), call_srcu(), call_rcu_tasks(), call_rcu_tasks_rude(),
+	or call_rcu_tasks_trace(), then it is necessary to wait for all
+	pending callbacks to be invoked before unloading that module.
+	Note that it is absolutely *not* sufficient to wait for a grace
+	period!  For example, synchronize_rcu() implementation is *not*
+	guaranteed to wait for callbacks registered on other CPUs via
+	call_rcu().  Or even on the current CPU if that CPU recently
+	went offline and came back online.
 
 	You instead need to use one of the barrier functions:
 
 	-	call_rcu() -> rcu_barrier()
 	-	call_srcu() -> srcu_barrier()
+	-	call_rcu_tasks() -> rcu_barrier_tasks()
+	-	call_rcu_tasks_rude() -> rcu_barrier_tasks_rude()
+	-	call_rcu_tasks_trace() -> rcu_barrier_tasks_trace()
 
 	However, these barrier functions are absolutely *not* guaranteed
-	to wait for a grace period.  In fact, if there are no call_rcu()
-	callbacks waiting anywhere in the system, rcu_barrier() is within
-	its rights to return immediately.
-
-	So if you need to wait for both an RCU grace period and for
-	all pre-existing call_rcu() callbacks, you will need to execute
-	both rcu_barrier() and synchronize_rcu(), if necessary, using
-	something like workqueues to execute them concurrently.
+	to wait for a grace period.  For example, if there are no
+	call_rcu() callbacks queued anywhere in the system, rcu_barrier()
+	can and will return immediately.
+
+	So if you need to wait for both a grace period and for all
+	pre-existing callbacks, you will need to invoke both functions,
+	with the pair depending on the flavor of RCU:
+
+	-	Either synchronize_rcu() or synchronize_rcu_expedited(),
+		together with rcu_barrier()
+	-	Either synchronize_srcu() or synchronize_srcu_expedited(),
+		together with and srcu_barrier()
+	-	synchronize_rcu_tasks() and rcu_barrier_tasks()
+	-	synchronize_tasks_rude() and rcu_barrier_tasks_rude()
+	-	synchronize_tasks_trace() and rcu_barrier_tasks_trace()
+
+	If necessary, you can use something like workqueues to execute
+	the requisite pair of functions concurrently.
 
 	See rcubarrier.rst for more information.
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/index.rst b/Documentation/RCU/index.rst
index e703d3dbe60c..84a79903f6a8 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/index.rst
@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ RCU concepts
 .. toctree::
    :maxdepth: 3
 
-   arrayRCU
    checklist
    lockdep
    lockdep-splat
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst
index 2a643e293fb4..bdc4bcc5289f 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/listRCU.rst
@@ -3,11 +3,10 @@
 Using RCU to Protect Read-Mostly Linked Lists
 =============================================
 
-One of the best applications of RCU is to protect read-mostly linked lists
-(``struct list_head`` in list.h).  One big advantage of this approach
-is that all of the required memory barriers are included for you in
-the list macros.  This document describes several applications of RCU,
-with the best fits first.
+One of the most common uses of RCU is protecting read-mostly linked lists
+(``struct list_head`` in list.h).  One big advantage of this approach is
+that all of the required memory ordering is provided by the list macros.
+This document describes several list-based RCU use cases.
 
 
 Example 1: Read-mostly list: Deferred Destruction
@@ -35,7 +34,8 @@ The code traversing the list of all processes typically looks like::
 	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
-The simplified code for removing a process from a task list is::
+The simplified and heavily inlined code for removing a process from a
+task list is::
 
 	void release_task(struct task_struct *p)
 	{
@@ -45,39 +45,48 @@ The simplified code for removing a process from a task list is::
 		call_rcu(&p->rcu, delayed_put_task_struct);
 	}
 
-When a process exits, ``release_task()`` calls ``list_del_rcu(&p->tasks)`` under
-``tasklist_lock`` writer lock protection, to remove the task from the list of
-all tasks. The ``tasklist_lock`` prevents concurrent list additions/removals
-from corrupting the list. Readers using ``for_each_process()`` are not protected
-with the ``tasklist_lock``. To prevent readers from noticing changes in the list
-pointers, the ``task_struct`` object is freed only after one or more grace
-periods elapse (with the help of call_rcu()). This deferring of destruction
-ensures that any readers traversing the list will see valid ``p->tasks.next``
-pointers and deletion/freeing can happen in parallel with traversal of the list.
-This pattern is also called an **existence lock**, since RCU pins the object in
-memory until all existing readers finish.
+When a process exits, ``release_task()`` calls ``list_del_rcu(&p->tasks)``
+via __exit_signal() and __unhash_process() under ``tasklist_lock``
+writer lock protection.  The list_del_rcu() invocation removes
+the task from the list of all tasks. The ``tasklist_lock``
+prevents concurrent list additions/removals from corrupting the
+list. Readers using ``for_each_process()`` are not protected with the
+``tasklist_lock``. To prevent readers from noticing changes in the list
+pointers, the ``task_struct`` object is freed only after one or more
+grace periods elapse, with the help of call_rcu(), which is invoked via
+put_task_struct_rcu_user(). This deferring of destruction ensures that
+any readers traversing the list will see valid ``p->tasks.next`` pointers
+and deletion/freeing can happen in parallel with traversal of the list.
+This pattern is also called an **existence lock**, since RCU refrains
+from invoking the delayed_put_task_struct() callback function until
+all existing readers finish, which guarantees that the ``task_struct``
+object in question will remain in existence until after the completion
+of all RCU readers that might possibly have a reference to that object.
 
 
 Example 2: Read-Side Action Taken Outside of Lock: No In-Place Updates
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-The best applications are cases where, if reader-writer locking were
-used, the read-side lock would be dropped before taking any action
-based on the results of the search.  The most celebrated example is
-the routing table.  Because the routing table is tracking the state of
-equipment outside of the computer, it will at times contain stale data.
-Therefore, once the route has been computed, there is no need to hold
-the routing table static during transmission of the packet.  After all,
-you can hold the routing table static all you want, but that won't keep
-the external Internet from changing, and it is the state of the external
-Internet that really matters.  In addition, routing entries are typically
-added or deleted, rather than being modified in place.
-
-A straightforward example of this use of RCU may be found in the
-system-call auditing support.  For example, a reader-writer locked
+Some reader-writer locking use cases compute a value while holding
+the read-side lock, but continue to use that value after that lock is
+released.  These use cases are often good candidates for conversion
+to RCU.  One prominent example involves network packet routing.
+Because the packet-routing data tracks the state of equipment outside
+of the computer, it will at times contain stale data.  Therefore, once
+the route has been computed, there is no need to hold the routing table
+static during transmission of the packet.  After all, you can hold the
+routing table static all you want, but that won't keep the external
+Internet from changing, and it is the state of the external Internet
+that really matters.  In addition, routing entries are typically added
+or deleted, rather than being modified in place.  This is a rare example
+of the finite speed of light and the non-zero size of atoms actually
+helping make synchronization be lighter weight.
+
+A straightforward example of this type of RCU use case may be found in
+the system-call auditing support.  For example, a reader-writer locked
 implementation of ``audit_filter_task()`` might be as follows::
 
-	static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
+	static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk, char **key)
 	{
 		struct audit_entry *e;
 		enum audit_state   state;
@@ -86,6 +95,8 @@ implementation of ``audit_filter_task()`` might be as follows::
 		/* Note: audit_filter_mutex held by caller. */
 		list_for_each_entry(e, &audit_tsklist, list) {
 			if (audit_filter_rules(tsk, &e->rule, NULL, &state)) {
+				if (state == AUDIT_STATE_RECORD)
+					*key = kstrdup(e->rule.filterkey, GFP_ATOMIC);
 				read_unlock(&auditsc_lock);
 				return state;
 			}
@@ -101,7 +112,7 @@ you are turning auditing off, it is OK to audit a few extra system calls.
 
 This means that RCU can be easily applied to the read side, as follows::
 
-	static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
+	static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk, char **key)
 	{
 		struct audit_entry *e;
 		enum audit_state   state;
@@ -110,6 +121,8 @@ This means that RCU can be easily applied to the read side, as follows::
 		/* Note: audit_filter_mutex held by caller. */
 		list_for_each_entry_rcu(e, &audit_tsklist, list) {
 			if (audit_filter_rules(tsk, &e->rule, NULL, &state)) {
+				if (state == AUDIT_STATE_RECORD)
+					*key = kstrdup(e->rule.filterkey, GFP_ATOMIC);
 				rcu_read_unlock();
 				return state;
 			}
@@ -118,13 +131,15 @@ This means that RCU can be easily applied to the read side, as follows::
 		return AUDIT_BUILD_CONTEXT;
 	}
 
-The ``read_lock()`` and ``read_unlock()`` calls have become rcu_read_lock()
-and rcu_read_unlock(), respectively, and the list_for_each_entry() has
-become list_for_each_entry_rcu().  The **_rcu()** list-traversal primitives
-insert the read-side memory barriers that are required on DEC Alpha CPUs.
+The read_lock() and read_unlock() calls have become rcu_read_lock()
+and rcu_read_unlock(), respectively, and the list_for_each_entry()
+has become list_for_each_entry_rcu().  The **_rcu()** list-traversal
+primitives add READ_ONCE() and diagnostic checks for incorrect use
+outside of an RCU read-side critical section.
 
 The changes to the update side are also straightforward. A reader-writer lock
-might be used as follows for deletion and insertion::
+might be used as follows for deletion and insertion in these simplified
+versions of audit_del_rule() and audit_add_rule()::
 
 	static inline int audit_del_rule(struct audit_rule *rule,
 					 struct list_head *list)
@@ -188,16 +203,16 @@ Following are the RCU equivalents for these two functions::
 		return 0;
 	}
 
-Normally, the ``write_lock()`` and ``write_unlock()`` would be replaced by a
+Normally, the write_lock() and write_unlock() would be replaced by a
 spin_lock() and a spin_unlock(). But in this case, all callers hold
 ``audit_filter_mutex``, so no additional locking is required. The
-``auditsc_lock`` can therefore be eliminated, since use of RCU eliminates the
+auditsc_lock can therefore be eliminated, since use of RCU eliminates the
 need for writers to exclude readers.
 
 The list_del(), list_add(), and list_add_tail() primitives have been
 replaced by list_del_rcu(), list_add_rcu(), and list_add_tail_rcu().
-The **_rcu()** list-manipulation primitives add memory barriers that are needed on
-weakly ordered CPUs (most of them!).  The list_del_rcu() primitive omits the
+The **_rcu()** list-manipulation primitives add memory barriers that are
+needed on weakly ordered CPUs.  The list_del_rcu() primitive omits the
 pointer poisoning debug-assist code that would otherwise cause concurrent
 readers to fail spectacularly.
 
@@ -238,7 +253,9 @@ need to be filled in)::
 The RCU version creates a copy, updates the copy, then replaces the old
 entry with the newly updated entry.  This sequence of actions, allowing
 concurrent reads while making a copy to perform an update, is what gives
-RCU (*read-copy update*) its name.  The RCU code is as follows::
+RCU (*read-copy update*) its name.
+
+The RCU version of audit_upd_rule() is as follows::
 
 	static inline int audit_upd_rule(struct audit_rule *rule,
 					 struct list_head *list,
@@ -267,6 +284,9 @@ RCU (*read-copy update*) its name.  The RCU code is as follows::
 Again, this assumes that the caller holds ``audit_filter_mutex``.  Normally, the
 writer lock would become a spinlock in this sort of code.
 
+The update_lsm_rule() does something very similar, for those who would
+prefer to look at real Linux-kernel code.
+
 Another use of this pattern can be found in the openswitch driver's *connection
 tracking table* code in ``ct_limit_set()``.  The table holds connection tracking
 entries and has a limit on the maximum entries.  There is one such table
@@ -281,9 +301,10 @@ Example 4: Eliminating Stale Data
 ---------------------------------
 
 The auditing example above tolerates stale data, as do most algorithms
-that are tracking external state.  Because there is a delay from the
-time the external state changes before Linux becomes aware of the change,
-additional RCU-induced staleness is generally not a problem.
+that are tracking external state.  After all, given there is a delay
+from the time the external state changes before Linux becomes aware
+of the change, and so as noted earlier, a small quantity of additional
+RCU-induced staleness is generally not a problem.
 
 However, there are many examples where stale data cannot be tolerated.
 One example in the Linux kernel is the System V IPC (see the shm_lock()
@@ -302,7 +323,7 @@ Quick Quiz:
 
 If the system-call audit module were to ever need to reject stale data, one way
 to accomplish this would be to add a ``deleted`` flag and a ``lock`` spinlock to the
-audit_entry structure, and modify ``audit_filter_task()`` as follows::
+``audit_entry`` structure, and modify audit_filter_task() as follows::
 
 	static enum audit_state audit_filter_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
 	{
@@ -319,6 +340,8 @@ audit_entry structure, and modify ``audit_filter_task()`` as follows::
 					return AUDIT_BUILD_CONTEXT;
 				}
 				rcu_read_unlock();
+				if (state == AUDIT_STATE_RECORD)
+					*key = kstrdup(e->rule.filterkey, GFP_ATOMIC);
 				return state;
 			}
 		}
@@ -326,12 +349,6 @@ audit_entry structure, and modify ``audit_filter_task()`` as follows::
 		return AUDIT_BUILD_CONTEXT;
 	}
 
-Note that this example assumes that entries are only added and deleted.
-Additional mechanism is required to deal correctly with the update-in-place
-performed by ``audit_upd_rule()``.  For one thing, ``audit_upd_rule()`` would
-need additional memory barriers to ensure that the list_add_rcu() was really
-executed before the list_del_rcu().
-
 The ``audit_del_rule()`` function would need to set the ``deleted`` flag under the
 spinlock as follows::
 
@@ -357,24 +374,32 @@ spinlock as follows::
 
 This too assumes that the caller holds ``audit_filter_mutex``.
 
+Note that this example assumes that entries are only added and deleted.
+Additional mechanism is required to deal correctly with the update-in-place
+performed by audit_upd_rule().  For one thing, audit_upd_rule() would
+need to hold the locks of both the old ``audit_entry`` and its replacement
+while executing the list_replace_rcu().
+
 
 Example 5: Skipping Stale Objects
 ---------------------------------
 
-For some usecases, reader performance can be improved by skipping stale objects
-during read-side list traversal if the object in concern is pending destruction
-after one or more grace periods. One such example can be found in the timerfd
-subsystem. When a ``CLOCK_REALTIME`` clock is reprogrammed - for example due to
-setting of the system time, then all programmed timerfds that depend on this
-clock get triggered and processes waiting on them to expire are woken up in
-advance of their scheduled expiry. To facilitate this, all such timers are added
-to an RCU-managed ``cancel_list`` when they are setup in
+For some use cases, reader performance can be improved by skipping
+stale objects during read-side list traversal, where stale objects
+are those that will be removed and destroyed after one or more grace
+periods. One such example can be found in the timerfd subsystem. When a
+``CLOCK_REALTIME`` clock is reprogrammed (for example due to setting
+of the system time) then all programmed ``timerfds`` that depend on
+this clock get triggered and processes waiting on them are awakened in
+advance of their scheduled expiry. To facilitate this, all such timers
+are added to an RCU-managed ``cancel_list`` when they are setup in
 ``timerfd_setup_cancel()``::
 
 	static void timerfd_setup_cancel(struct timerfd_ctx *ctx, int flags)
 	{
 		spin_lock(&ctx->cancel_lock);
-		if ((ctx->clockid == CLOCK_REALTIME &&
+		if ((ctx->clockid == CLOCK_REALTIME ||
+		     ctx->clockid == CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM) &&
 		    (flags & TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME) && (flags & TFD_TIMER_CANCEL_ON_SET)) {
 			if (!ctx->might_cancel) {
 				ctx->might_cancel = true;
@@ -382,13 +407,16 @@ to an RCU-managed ``cancel_list`` when they are setup in
 				list_add_rcu(&ctx->clist, &cancel_list);
 				spin_unlock(&cancel_lock);
 			}
+		} else {
+			__timerfd_remove_cancel(ctx);
 		}
 		spin_unlock(&ctx->cancel_lock);
 	}
 
-When a timerfd is freed (fd is closed), then the ``might_cancel`` flag of the
-timerfd object is cleared, the object removed from the ``cancel_list`` and
-destroyed::
+When a timerfd is freed (fd is closed), then the ``might_cancel``
+flag of the timerfd object is cleared, the object removed from the
+``cancel_list`` and destroyed, as shown in this simplified and inlined
+version of timerfd_release()::
 
 	int timerfd_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 	{
@@ -403,7 +431,10 @@ destroyed::
 		}
 		spin_unlock(&ctx->cancel_lock);
 
-		hrtimer_cancel(&ctx->t.tmr);
+		if (isalarm(ctx))
+			alarm_cancel(&ctx->t.alarm);
+		else
+			hrtimer_cancel(&ctx->t.tmr);
 		kfree_rcu(ctx, rcu);
 		return 0;
 	}
@@ -416,6 +447,7 @@ objects::
 
 	void timerfd_clock_was_set(void)
 	{
+		ktime_t moffs = ktime_mono_to_real(0);
 		struct timerfd_ctx *ctx;
 		unsigned long flags;
 
@@ -424,7 +456,7 @@ objects::
 			if (!ctx->might_cancel)
 				continue;
 			spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->wqh.lock, flags);
-			if (ctx->moffs != ktime_mono_to_real(0)) {
+			if (ctx->moffs != moffs) {
 				ctx->moffs = KTIME_MAX;
 				ctx->ticks++;
 				wake_up_locked_poll(&ctx->wqh, EPOLLIN);
@@ -434,10 +466,10 @@ objects::
 		rcu_read_unlock();
 	}
 
-The key point here is, because RCU-traversal of the ``cancel_list`` happens
-while objects are being added and removed to the list, sometimes the traversal
-can step on an object that has been removed from the list. In this example, it
-is seen that it is better to skip such objects using a flag.
+The key point is that because RCU-protected traversal of the
+``cancel_list`` happens concurrently with object addition and removal,
+sometimes the traversal can access an object that has been removed from
+the list. In this example, a flag is used to skip such objects.
 
 
 Summary
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst
index a94f55991a71..9308f1bdba05 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.rst
@@ -17,7 +17,9 @@ state::
 	rcu_read_lock_held() for normal RCU.
 	rcu_read_lock_bh_held() for RCU-bh.
 	rcu_read_lock_sched_held() for RCU-sched.
+	rcu_read_lock_any_held() for any of normal RCU, RCU-bh, and RCU-sched.
 	srcu_read_lock_held() for SRCU.
+	rcu_read_lock_trace_held() for RCU Tasks Trace.
 
 These functions are conservative, and will therefore return 1 if they
 aren't certain (for example, if CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is not set).
@@ -53,6 +55,8 @@ checking of rcu_dereference() primitives:
 		is invoked by both SRCU readers and updaters.
 	rcu_dereference_raw(p):
 		Don't check.  (Use sparingly, if at all.)
+	rcu_dereference_raw_check(p):
+		Don't do lockdep at all.  (Use sparingly, if at all.)
 	rcu_dereference_protected(p, c):
 		Use explicit check expression "c", and omit all barriers
 		and compiler constraints.  This is useful when the data