Merge tag 'docs-4.13' of git://git.lwn.net/linux

Pull documentation updates from Jonathan Corbet:
 "There has been a fair amount of activity in the docs tree this time
  around. Highlights include:

   - Conversion of a bunch of security documentation into RST

   - The conversion of the remaining DocBook templates by The Amazing
     Mauro Machine. We can now drop the entire DocBook build chain.

   - The usual collection of fixes and minor updates"

* tag 'docs-4.13' of git://git.lwn.net/linux: (90 commits)
  scripts/kernel-doc: handle DECLARE_HASHTABLE
  Documentation: atomic_ops.txt is core-api/atomic_ops.rst
  Docs: clean up some DocBook loose ends
  Make the main documentation title less Geocities
  Docs: Use kernel-figure in vidioc-g-selection.rst
  Docs: fix table problems in ras.rst
  Docs: Fix breakage with Sphinx 1.5 and upper
  Docs: Include the Latex "ifthen" package
  doc/kokr/howto: Only send regression fixes after -rc1
  docs-rst: fix broken links to dynamic-debug-howto in kernel-parameters
  doc: Document suitability of IBM Verse for kernel development
  Doc: fix a markup error in coding-style.rst
  docs: driver-api: i2c: remove some outdated information
  Documentation: DMA API: fix a typo in a function name
  Docs: Insert missing space to separate link from text
  doc/ko_KR/memory-barriers: Update control-dependencies example
  Documentation, kbuild: fix typo "minimun" -> "minimum"
  docs: Fix some formatting issues in request-key.rst
  doc: ReSTify keys-trusted-encrypted.txt
  doc: ReSTify keys-request-key.txt
  ...

4 files changed, 2276 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/conf.py b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/conf.py
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..3d8acf0f33ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/conf.py
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+# -*- coding: utf-8; mode: python -*-
+
+project = "Kernel Hacking Guides"
+
+tags.add("subproject")
+
+latex_documents = [
+    ('index', 'kernel-hacking.tex', project,
+     'The kernel development community', 'manual'),
+]
diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..daf3883b2694
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,811 @@
+============================================
+Unreliable Guide To Hacking The Linux Kernel
+============================================
+
+:Author: Rusty Russell
+
+Introduction
+============
+
+Welcome, gentle reader, to Rusty's Remarkably Unreliable Guide to Linux
+Kernel Hacking. This document describes the common routines and general
+requirements for kernel code: its goal is to serve as a primer for Linux
+kernel development for experienced C programmers. I avoid implementation
+details: that's what the code is for, and I ignore whole tracts of
+useful routines.
+
+Before you read this, please understand that I never wanted to write
+this document, being grossly under-qualified, but I always wanted to
+read it, and this was the only way. I hope it will grow into a
+compendium of best practice, common starting points and random
+information.
+
+The Players
+===========
+
+At any time each of the CPUs in a system can be:
+
+-  not associated with any process, serving a hardware interrupt;
+
+-  not associated with any process, serving a softirq or tasklet;
+
+-  running in kernel space, associated with a process (user context);
+
+-  running a process in user space.
+
+There is an ordering between these. The bottom two can preempt each
+other, but above that is a strict hierarchy: each can only be preempted
+by the ones above it. For example, while a softirq is running on a CPU,
+no other softirq will preempt it, but a hardware interrupt can. However,
+any other CPUs in the system execute independently.
+
+We'll see a number of ways that the user context can block interrupts,
+to become truly non-preemptable.
+
+User Context
+------------
+
+User context is when you are coming in from a system call or other trap:
+like userspace, you can be preempted by more important tasks and by
+interrupts. You can sleep, by calling :c:func:`schedule()`.
+
+.. note::
+
+    You are always in user context on module load and unload, and on
+    operations on the block device layer.
+
+In user context, the ``current`` pointer (indicating the task we are
+currently executing) is valid, and :c:func:`in_interrupt()`
+(``include/linux/preempt.h``) is false.
+
+.. warning::
+
+    Beware that if you have preemption or softirqs disabled (see below),
+    :c:func:`in_interrupt()` will return a false positive.
+
+Hardware Interrupts (Hard IRQs)
+-------------------------------
+
+Timer ticks, network cards and keyboard are examples of real hardware
+which produce interrupts at any time. The kernel runs interrupt
+handlers, which services the hardware. The kernel guarantees that this
+handler is never re-entered: if the same interrupt arrives, it is queued
+(or dropped). Because it disables interrupts, this handler has to be
+fast: frequently it simply acknowledges the interrupt, marks a 'software
+interrupt' for execution and exits.
+
+You can tell you are in a hardware interrupt, because
+:c:func:`in_irq()` returns true.
+
+.. warning::
+
+    Beware that this will return a false positive if interrupts are
+    disabled (see below).
+
+Software Interrupt Context: Softirqs and Tasklets
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Whenever a system call is about to return to userspace, or a hardware
+interrupt handler exits, any 'software interrupts' which are marked
+pending (usually by hardware interrupts) are run (``kernel/softirq.c``).
+
+Much of the real interrupt handling work is done here. Early in the
+transition to SMP, there were only 'bottom halves' (BHs), which didn't
+take advantage of multiple CPUs. Shortly after we switched from wind-up
+computers made of match-sticks and snot, we abandoned this limitation
+and switched to 'softirqs'.
+
+``include/linux/interrupt.h`` lists the different softirqs. A very
+important softirq is the timer softirq (``include/linux/timer.h``): you
+can register to have it call functions for you in a given length of
+time.
+
+Softirqs are often a pain to deal with, since the same softirq will run
+simultaneously on more than one CPU. For this reason, tasklets
+(``include/linux/interrupt.h``) are more often used: they are
+dynamically-registrable (meaning you can have as many as you want), and
+they also guarantee that any tasklet will only run on one CPU at any
+time, although different tasklets can run simultaneously.
+
+.. warning::
+
+    The name 'tasklet' is misleading: they have nothing to do with
+    'tasks', and probably more to do with some bad vodka Alexey
+    Kuznetsov had at the time.
+
+You can tell you are in a softirq (or tasklet) using the
+:c:func:`in_softirq()` macro (``include/linux/preempt.h``).
+
+.. warning::
+
+    Beware that this will return a false positive if a
+    :ref:`botton half lock <local_bh_disable>` is held.
+
+Some Basic Rules
+================
+
+No memory protection
+    If you corrupt memory, whether in user context or interrupt context,
+    the whole machine will crash. Are you sure you can't do what you
+    want in userspace?
+
+No floating point or MMX
+    The FPU context is not saved; even in user context the FPU state
+    probably won't correspond with the current process: you would mess
+    with some user process' FPU state. If you really want to do this,
+    you would have to explicitly save/restore the full FPU state (and
+    avoid context switches). It is generally a bad idea; use fixed point
+    arithmetic first.
+
+A rigid stack limit
+    Depending on configuration options the kernel stack is about 3K to
+    6K for most 32-bit architectures: it's about 14K on most 64-bit
+    archs, and often shared with interrupts so you can't use it all.
+    Avoid deep recursion and huge local arrays on the stack (allocate
+    them dynamically instead).
+
+The Linux kernel is portable
+    Let's keep it that way. Your code should be 64-bit clean, and
+    endian-independent. You should also minimize CPU specific stuff,
+    e.g. inline assembly should be cleanly encapsulated and minimized to
+    ease porting. Generally it should be restricted to the
+    architecture-dependent part of the kernel tree.
+
+ioctls: Not writing a new system call
+=====================================
+
+A system call generally looks like this::
+
+    asmlinkage long sys_mycall(int arg)
+    {
+            return 0;
+    }
+
+
+First, in most cases you don't want to create a new system call. You
+create a character device and implement an appropriate ioctl for it.
+This is much more flexible than system calls, doesn't have to be entered
+in every architecture's ``include/asm/unistd.h`` and
+``arch/kernel/entry.S`` file, and is much more likely to be accepted by
+Linus.
+
+If all your routine does is read or write some parameter, consider
+implementing a :c:func:`sysfs()` interface instead.
+
+Inside the ioctl you're in user context to a process. When a error
+occurs you return a negated errno (see
+``include/uapi/asm-generic/errno-base.h``,
+``include/uapi/asm-generic/errno.h`` and ``include/linux/errno.h``),
+otherwise you return 0.
+
+After you slept you should check if a signal occurred: the Unix/Linux
+way of handling signals is to temporarily exit the system call with the
+``-ERESTARTSYS`` error. The system call entry code will switch back to
+user context, process the signal handler and then your system call will
+be restarted (unless the user disabled that). So you should be prepared
+to process the restart, e.g. if you're in the middle of manipulating
+some data structure.
+
+::
+
+    if (signal_pending(current))
+            return -ERESTARTSYS;
+
+
+If you're doing longer computations: first think userspace. If you
+**really** want to do it in kernel you should regularly check if you need
+to give up the CPU (remember there is cooperative multitasking per CPU).
+Idiom::
+
+    cond_resched(); /* Will sleep */
+
+
+A short note on interface design: the UNIX system call motto is "Provide
+mechanism not policy".
+
+Recipes for Deadlock
+====================
+
+You cannot call any routines which may sleep, unless:
+
+-  You are in user context.
+
+-  You do not own any spinlocks.
+
+-  You have interrupts enabled (actually, Andi Kleen says that the
+   scheduling code will enable them for you, but that's probably not
+   what you wanted).
+
+Note that some functions may sleep implicitly: common ones are the user
+space access functions (\*_user) and memory allocation functions
+without ``GFP_ATOMIC``.
+
+You should always compile your kernel ``CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP`` on,
+and it will warn you if you break these rules. If you **do** break the
+rules, you will eventually lock up your box.
+
+Really.
+
+Common Routines
+===============
+
+:c:func:`printk()`
+------------------
+
+Defined in ``include/linux/printk.h``
+
+:c:func:`printk()` feeds kernel messages to the console, dmesg, and
+the syslog daemon. It is useful for debugging and reporting errors, and
+can be used inside interrupt context, but use with caution: a machine
+which has its console flooded with printk messages is unusable. It uses
+a format string mostly compatible with ANSI C printf, and C string
+concatenation to give it a first "priority" argument::
+
+    printk(KERN_INFO "i = %u\n", i);
+
+
+See ``include/linux/kern_levels.h``; for other ``KERN_`` values; these are
+interpreted by syslog as the level. Special case: for printing an IP
+address use::
+
+    __be32 ipaddress;
+    printk(KERN_INFO "my ip: %pI4\n", &ipaddress);
+
+
+:c:func:`printk()` internally uses a 1K buffer and does not catch
+overruns. Make sure that will be enough.
+
+.. note::
+
+    You will know when you are a real kernel hacker when you start
+    typoing printf as printk in your user programs :)
+
+.. note::
+
+    Another sidenote: the original Unix Version 6 sources had a comment
+    on top of its printf function: "Printf should not be used for
+    chit-chat". You should follow that advice.
+
+:c:func:`copy_to_user()` / :c:func:`copy_from_user()` / :c:func:`get_user()` / :c:func:`put_user()`
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Defined in ``include/linux/uaccess.h`` / ``asm/uaccess.h``
+
+**[SLEEPS]**
+
+:c:func:`put_user()` and :c:func:`get_user()` are used to get
+and put single values (such as an int, char, or long) from and to
+userspace. A pointer into userspace should never be simply dereferenced:
+data should be copied using these routines. Both return ``-EFAULT`` or
+0.
+
+:c:func:`copy_to_user()` and :c:func:`copy_from_user()` are
+more general: they copy an arbitrary amount of data to and from
+userspace.
+
+.. warning::
+
+    Unlike :c:func:`put_user()` and :c:func:`get_user()`, they
+    return the amount of uncopied data (ie. 0 still means success).
+
+[Yes, this moronic interface makes me cringe. The flamewar comes up
+every year or so. --RR.]
+
+The functions may sleep implicitly. This should never be called outside
+user context (it makes no sense), with interrupts disabled, or a
+spinlock held.
+
+:c:func:`kmalloc()`/:c:func:`kfree()`
+-------------------------------------
+
+Defined in ``include/linux/slab.h``
+
+**[MAY SLEEP: SEE BELOW]**
+
+These routines are used to dynamically request pointer-aligned chunks of
+memory, like malloc and free do in userspace, but
+:c:func:`kmalloc()` takes an extra flag word. Important values:
+
+``GFP_KERNEL``
+    May sleep and swap to free memory. Only allowed in user context, but
+    is the most reliable way to allocate memory.
+
+``GFP_ATOMIC``
+    Don't sleep. Less reliable than ``GFP_KERNEL``, but may be called
+    from interrupt context. You should **really** have a good
+    out-of-memory error-handling strategy.
+
+``GFP_DMA``
+    Allocate ISA DMA lower than 16MB. If you don't know what that is you
+    don't need it. Very unreliable.
+
+If you see a sleeping function called from invalid context warning
+message, then maybe you called a sleeping allocation function from
+interrupt context without ``GFP_ATOMIC``. You should really fix that.
+Run, don't walk.
+
+If you are allocating at least ``PAGE_SIZE`` (``asm/page.h`` or
+``asm/page_types.h``) bytes, consider using :c:func:`__get_free_pages()`
+(``include/linux/gfp.h``). It takes an order argument (0 for page sized,
+1 for double page, 2 for four pages etc.) and the same memory priority
+flag word as above.
+
+If you are allocating more than a page worth of bytes you can use
+:c:func:`vmalloc()`. It'll allocate virtual memory in the kernel
+map. This block is not contiguous in physical memory, but the MMU makes
+it look like it is for you (so it'll only look contiguous to the CPUs,
+not to external device drivers). If you really need large physically
+contiguous memory for some weird device, you have a problem: it is
+poorly supported in Linux because after some time memory fragmentation
+in a running kernel makes it hard. The best way is to allocate the block
+early in the boot process via the :c:func:`alloc_bootmem()`
+routine.
+
+Before inventing your own cache of often-used objects consider using a
+slab cache in ``include/linux/slab.h``
+
+:c:func:`current()`
+-------------------
+
+Defined in ``include/asm/current.h``
+
+This global variable (really a macro) contains a pointer to the current
+task structure, so is only valid in user context. For example, when a
+process makes a system call, this will point to the task structure of
+the calling process. It is **not NULL** in interrupt context.
+
+:c:func:`mdelay()`/:c:func:`udelay()`
+-------------------------------------
+
+Defined in ``include/asm/delay.h`` / ``include/linux/delay.h``
+
+The :c:func:`udelay()` and :c:func:`ndelay()` functions can be
+used for small pauses. Do not use large values with them as you risk
+overflow - the helper function :c:func:`mdelay()` is useful here, or
+consider :c:func:`msleep()`.
+
+:c:func:`cpu_to_be32()`/:c:func:`be32_to_cpu()`/:c:func:`cpu_to_le32()`/:c:func:`le32_to_cpu()`
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Defined in ``include/asm/byteorder.h``
+
+The :c:func:`cpu_to_be32()` family (where the "32" can be replaced
+by 64 or 16, and the "be" can be replaced by "le") are the general way
+to do endian conversions in the kernel: they return the converted value.
+All variations supply the reverse as well:
+:c:func:`be32_to_cpu()`, etc.
+
+There are two major variations of these functions: the pointer
+variation, such as :c:func:`cpu_to_be32p()`, which take a pointer
+to the given type, and return the converted value. The other variation
+is the "in-situ" family, such as :c:func:`cpu_to_be32s()`, which
+convert value referred to by the pointer, and return void.
+
+:c:func:`local_irq_save()`/:c:func:`local_irq_restore()`
+--------------------------------------------------------
+
+Defined in ``include/linux/irqflags.h``
+
+These routines disable hard interrupts on the local CPU, and restore
+them. They are reentrant; saving the previous state in their one
+``unsigned long flags`` argument. If you know that interrupts are
+enabled, you can simply use :c:func:`local_irq_disable()` and
+:c:func:`local_irq_enable()`.
+
+.. _local_bh_disable:
+
+:c:func:`local_bh_disable()`/:c:func:`local_bh_enable()`
+--------------------------------------------------------
+
+Defined in ``include/linux/bottom_half.h``
+
+
+These routines disable soft interrupts on the local CPU, and restore
+them. They are reentrant; if soft interrupts were disabled before, they
+will still be disabled after this pair of functions has been called.
+They prevent softirqs and tasklets from running on the current CPU.
+
+:c:func:`smp_processor_id()`
+----------------------------
+
+Defined in ``include/linux/smp.h``
+
+:c:func:`get_cpu()` disables preemption (so you won't suddenly get
+moved to another CPU) and returns the current processor number, between
+0 and ``NR_CPUS``. Note that the CPU numbers are not necessarily
+continuous. You return it again with :c:func:`put_cpu()` when you
+are done.
+
+If you know you cannot be preempted by another task (ie. you are in
+interrupt context, or have preemption disabled) you can use
+smp_processor_id().
+
+``__init``/``__exit``/``__initdata``
+------------------------------------
+
+Defined in  ``include/linux/init.h``
+
+After boot, the kernel frees up a special section; functions marked with
+``__init`` and data structures marked with ``__initdata`` are dropped
+after boot is complete: similarly modules discard this memory after
+initialization. ``__exit`` is used to declare a function which is only
+required on exit: the function will be dropped if this file is not
+compiled as a module. See the header file for use. Note that it makes no
+sense for a function marked with ``__init`` to be exported to modules
+with :c:func:`EXPORT_SYMBOL()` or :c:func:`EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()`- this
+will break.
+
+:c:func:`__initcall()`/:c:func:`module_init()`
+----------------------------------------------
+
+Defined in  ``include/linux/init.h`` / ``include/linux/module.h``
+
+Many parts of the kernel are well served as a module
+(dynamically-loadable parts of the kernel). Using the
+:c:func:`module_init()` and :c:func:`module_exit()` macros it
+is easy to write code without #ifdefs which can operate both as a module
+or built into the kernel.
+
+The :c:func:`module_init()` macro defines which function is to be
+called at module insertion time (if the file is compiled as a module),
+or at boot time: if the file is not compiled as a module the
+:c:func:`module_init()` macro becomes equivalent to
+:c:func:`__initcall()`, which through linker magic ensures that
+the function is called on boot.
+
+The function can return a negative error number to cause module loading
+to fail (unfortunately, this has no effect if the module is compiled
+into the kernel). This function is called in user context with
+interrupts enabled, so it can sleep.
+
+:c:func:`module_exit()`
+-----------------------
+
+
+Defined in  ``include/linux/module.h``
+
+This macro defines the function to be called at module removal time (or
+never, in the case of the file compiled into the kernel). It will only
+be called if the module usage count has reached zero. This function can
+also sleep, but cannot fail: everything must be cleaned up by the time
+it returns.
+
+Note that this macro is optional: if it is not present, your module will
+not be removable (except for 'rmmod -f').
+
+:c:func:`try_module_get()`/:c:func:`module_put()`
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Defined in ``include/linux/module.h``
+
+These manipulate the module usage count, to protect against removal (a
+module also can't be removed if another module uses one of its exported
+symbols: see below). Before calling into module code, you should call
+:c:func:`try_module_get()` on that module: if it fails, then the
+module is being removed and you should act as if it wasn't there.
+Otherwise, you can safely enter the module, and call
+:c:func:`module_put()` when you're finished.
+
+Most registerable structures have an owner field, such as in the
+:c:type:`struct file_operations <file_operations>` structure.
+Set this field to the macro ``THIS_MODULE``.
+
+Wait Queues ``include/linux/wait.h``
+====================================
+
+**[SLEEPS]**
+
+A wait queue is used to wait for someone to wake you up when a certain
+condition is true. They must be used carefully to ensure there is no
+race condition. You declare a :c:type:`wait_queue_head_t`, and then processes
+which want to wait for that condition declare a :c:type:`wait_queue_entry_t`
+referring to themselves, and place that in the queue.
+
+Declaring
+---------
+
+You declare a ``wait_queue_head_t`` using the
+:c:func:`DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD()` macro, or using the
+:c:func:`init_waitqueue_head()` routine in your initialization
+code.
+
+Queuing
+-------
+
+Placing yourself in the waitqueue is fairly complex, because you must
+put yourself in the queue before checking the condition. There is a
+macro to do this: :c:func:`wait_event_interruptible()`
+(``include/linux/wait.h``) The first argument is the wait queue head, and
+the second is an expression which is evaluated; the macro returns 0 when
+this expression is true, or ``-ERESTARTSYS`` if a signal is received. The
+:c:func:`wait_event()` version ignores signals.
+
+Waking Up Queued Tasks
+----------------------
+
+Call :c:func:`wake_up()` (``include/linux/wait.h``);, which will wake
+up every process in the queue. The exception is if one has
+``TASK_EXCLUSIVE`` set, in which case the remainder of the queue will
+not be woken. There are other variants of this basic function available
+in the same header.
+
+Atomic Operations
+=================
+
+Certain operations are guaranteed atomic on all platforms. The first
+class of operations work on :c:type:`atomic_t` (``include/asm/atomic.h``);
+this contains a signed integer (at least 32 bits long), and you must use
+these functions to manipulate or read :c:type:`atomic_t` variables.
+:c:func:`atomic_read()` and :c:func:`atomic_set()` get and set
+the counter, :c:func:`atomic_add()`, :c:func:`atomic_sub()`,
+:c:func:`atomic_inc()`, :c:func:`atomic_dec()`, and
+:c:func:`atomic_dec_and_test()` (returns true if it was
+decremented to zero).
+
+Yes. It returns true (i.e. != 0) if the atomic variable is zero.
+
+Note that these functions are slower than normal arithmetic, and so
+should not be used unnecessarily.
+
+The second class of atomic operations is atomic bit operations on an
+``unsigned long``, defined in ``include/linux/bitops.h``. These
+operations generally take a pointer to the bit pattern, and a bit
+number: 0 is the least significant bit. :c:func:`set_bit()`,
+:c:func:`clear_bit()` and :c:func:`change_bit()` set, clear,
+and flip the given bit. :c:func:`test_and_set_bit()`,
+:c:func:`test_and_clear_bit()` and
+:c:func:`test_and_change_bit()` do the same thing, except return
+true if the bit was previously set; these are particularly useful for
+atomically setting flags.
+
+It is possible to call these operations with bit indices greater than
+``BITS_PER_LONG``. The resulting behavior is strange on big-endian
+platforms though so it is a good idea not to do this.
+
+Symbols
+=======
+
+Within the kernel proper, the normal linking rules apply (ie. unless a
+symbol is declared to be file scope with the ``static`` keyword, it can
+be used anywhere in the kernel). However, for modules, a special
+exported symbol table is kept which limits the entry points to the
+kernel proper. Modules can also export symbols.
+
+:c:func:`EXPORT_SYMBOL()`
+-------------------------
+
+Defined in ``include/linux/export.h``
+
+This is the classic method of exporting a symbol: dynamically loaded
+modules will be able to use the symbol as normal.
+
+:c:func:`EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()`
+-----------------------------
+
+Defined in ``include/linux/export.h``
+
+Similar to :c:func:`EXPORT_SYMBOL()` except that the symbols
+exported by :c:func:`EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()` can only be seen by
+modules with a :c:func:`MODULE_LICENSE()` that specifies a GPL
+compatible license. It implies that the function is considered an
+internal implementation issue, and not really an interface. Some
+maintainers and developers may however require EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
+when adding any new APIs or functionality.
+
+Routines and Conventions
+========================
+
+Double-linked lists ``include/linux/list.h``
+--------------------------------------------
+
+There used to be three sets of linked-list routines in the kernel
+headers, but this one is the winner. If you don't have some particular
+pressing need for a single list, it's a good choice.
+
+In particular, :c:func:`list_for_each_entry()` is useful.
+
+Return Conventions
+------------------
+
+For code called in user context, it's very common to defy C convention,
+and return 0 for success, and a negative error number (eg. ``-EFAULT``) for
+failure. This can be unintuitive at first, but it's fairly widespread in
+the kernel.
+
+Using :c:func:`ERR_PTR()` (``include/linux/err.h``) to encode a
+negative error number into a pointer, and :c:func:`IS_ERR()` and
+:c:func:`PTR_ERR()` to get it back out again: avoids a separate
+pointer parameter for the error number. Icky, but in a good way.
+
+Breaking Compilation
+--------------------
+
+Linus and the other developers sometimes change function or structure
+names in development kernels; this is not done just to keep everyone on
+their toes: it reflects a fundamental change (eg. can no longer be
+called with interrupts on, or does extra checks, or doesn't do checks
+which were caught before). Usually this is accompanied by a fairly
+complete note to the linux-kernel mailing list; search the archive.
+Simply doing a global replace on the file usually makes things **worse**.
+
+Initializing structure members
+------------------------------
+
+The preferred method of initializing structures is to use designated
+initialisers, as defined by ISO C99, eg::
+
+    static struct block_device_operations opt_fops = {
+            .open               = opt_open,
+            .release            = opt_release,
+            .ioctl              = opt_ioctl,
+            .check_media_change = opt_media_change,
+    };
+
+
+This makes it easy to grep for, and makes it clear which structure
+fields are set. You should do this because it looks cool.
+
+GNU Extensions
+--------------
+
+GNU Extensions are explicitly allowed in the Linux kernel. Note that
+some of the more complex ones are not very well supported, due to lack
+of general use, but the following are considered standard (see the GCC
+info page section "C Extensions" for more details - Yes, really the info
+page, the man page is only a short summary of the stuff in info).
+
+-  Inline functions
+
+-  Statement expressions (ie. the ({ and }) constructs).
+
+-  Declaring attributes of a function / variable / type
+   (__attribute__)
+
+-  typeof
+
+-  Zero length arrays
+
+-  Macro varargs
+
+-  Arithmetic on void pointers
+
+-  Non-Constant initializers
+
+-  Assembler Instructions (not outside arch/ and include/asm/)
+
+-  Function names as strings (__func__).
+
+-  __builtin_constant_p()
+
+Be wary when using long long in the kernel, the code gcc generates for
+it is horrible and worse: division and multiplication does not work on
+i386 because the GCC runtime functions for it are missing from the
+kernel environment.
+
+C++
+---
+
+Using C++ in the kernel is usually a bad idea, because the kernel does
+not provide the necessary runtime environment and the include files are
+not tested for it. It is still possible, but not recommended. If you
+really want to do this, forget about exceptions at least.
+
+NUMif
+-----
+
+It is generally considered cleaner to use macros in header files (or at
+the top of .c files) to abstract away functions rather than using \`#if'
+pre-processor statements throughout the source code.
+
+Putting Your Stuff in the Kernel
+================================
+
+In order to get your stuff into shape for official inclusion, or even to
+make a neat patch, there's administrative work to be done:
+
+-  Figure out whose pond you've been pissing in. Look at the top of the
+   source files, inside the ``MAINTAINERS`` file, and last of all in the
+   ``CREDITS`` file. You should coordinate with this person to make sure
+   you're not duplicating effort, or trying something that's already
+   been rejected.
+
+   Make sure you put your name and EMail address at the top of any files
+   you create or mangle significantly. This is the first place people
+   will look when they find a bug, or when **they** want to make a change.
+
+-  Usually you want a configuration option for your kernel hack. Edit
+   ``Kconfig`` in the appropriate directory. The Config language is
+   simple to use by cut and paste, and there's complete documentation in
+   ``Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt``.
+
+   In your description of the option, make sure you address both the
+   expert user and the user who knows nothing about your feature.
+   Mention incompatibilities and issues here. **Definitely** end your
+   description with “if in doubt, say N” (or, occasionally, \`Y'); this
+   is for people who have no idea what you are talking about.
+
+-  Edit the ``Makefile``: the CONFIG variables are exported here so you
+   can usually just add a "obj-$(CONFIG_xxx) += xxx.o" line. The syntax
+   is documented in ``Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt``.
+
+-  Put yourself in ``CREDITS`` if you've done something noteworthy,
+   usually beyond a single file (your name should be at the top of the
+   source files anyway). ``MAINTAINERS`` means you want to be consulted
+   when changes are made to a subsystem, and hear about bugs; it implies
+   a more-than-passing commitment to some part of the code.
+
+-  Finally, don't forget to read
+   ``Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst`` and possibly
+   ``Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst``.
+
+Kernel Cantrips
+===============
+
+Some favorites from browsing the source. Feel free to add to this list.
+
+``arch/x86/include/asm/delay.h``::
+
+    #define ndelay(n) (__builtin_constant_p(n) ? \
+            ((n) > 20000 ? __bad_ndelay() : __const_udelay((n) * 5ul)) : \
+            __ndelay(n))
+
+
+``include/linux/fs.h``::
+
+    /*
+     * Kernel pointers have redundant information, so we can use a
+     * scheme where we can return either an error code or a dentry
+     * pointer with the same return value.
+     *
+     * This should be a per-architecture thing, to allow different
+     * error and pointer decisions.
+     */
+     #define ERR_PTR(err)    ((void *)((long)(err)))
+     #define PTR_ERR(ptr)    ((long)(ptr))
+     #define IS_ERR(ptr)     ((unsigned long)(ptr) > (unsigned long)(-1000))
+
+``arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_32.h:``::
+
+    #define copy_to_user(to,from,n)                         \
+            (__builtin_constant_p(n) ?                      \
+             __constant_copy_to_user((to),(from),(n)) :     \
+             __generic_copy_to_user((to),(from),(n)))
+
+
+``arch/sparc/kernel/head.S:``::
+
+    /*
+     * Sun people can't spell worth damn. "compatability" indeed.
+     * At least we *know* we can't spell, and use a spell-checker.
+     */
+
+    /* Uh, actually Linus it is I who cannot spell. Too much murky
+     * Sparc assembly will do this to ya.
+     */
+    C_LABEL(cputypvar):
+            .asciz "compatibility"
+
+    /* Tested on SS-5, SS-10. Probably someone at Sun applied a spell-checker. */
+            .align 4
+    C_LABEL(cputypvar_sun4m):
+            .asciz "compatible"
+
+
+``arch/sparc/lib/checksum.S:``::
+
+            /* Sun, you just can't beat me, you just can't.  Stop trying,
+             * give up.  I'm serious, I am going to kick the living shit
+             * out of you, game over, lights out.
+             */
+
+
+Thanks
+======
+
+Thanks to Andi Kleen for the idea, answering my questions, fixing my
+mistakes, filling content, etc. Philipp Rumpf for more spelling and
+clarity fixes, and some excellent non-obvious points. Werner Almesberger
+for giving me a great summary of :c:func:`disable_irq()`, and Jes
+Sorensen and Andrea Arcangeli added caveats. Michael Elizabeth Chastain
+for checking and adding to the Configure section. Telsa Gwynne for
+teaching me DocBook.
diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/index.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/index.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..fcb0eda3cca3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/index.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+=====================
+Kernel Hacking Guides
+=====================
+
+.. toctree::
+   :maxdepth: 2
+
+   hacking
+   locking
diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..f937c0fd11aa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,1446 @@
+===========================
+Unreliable Guide To Locking
+===========================
+
+:Author: Rusty Russell
+
+Introduction
+============
+
+Welcome, to Rusty's Remarkably Unreliable Guide to Kernel Locking
+issues. This document describes the locking systems in the Linux Kernel
+in 2.6.
+
+With the wide availability of HyperThreading, and preemption in the
+Linux Kernel, everyone hacking on the kernel needs to know the
+fundamentals of concurrency and locking for SMP.
+
+The Problem With Concurrency
+============================
+
+(Skip this if you know what a Race Condition is).
+
+In a normal program, you can increment a counter like so:
+
+::
+
+          very_important_count++;
+
+
+This is what they would expect to happen:
+
+
+.. table:: Expected Results
+
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  | Instance 1                         | Instance 2                         |
+  +====================================+====================================+
+  | read very_important_count (5)      |                                    |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  | add 1 (6)                          |                                    |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  | write very_important_count (6)     |                                    |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  |                                    | read very_important_count (6)      |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  |                                    | add 1 (7)                          |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  |                                    | write very_important_count (7)     |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+
+This is what might happen:
+
+.. table:: Possible Results
+
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  | Instance 1                         | Instance 2                         |
+  +====================================+====================================+
+  | read very_important_count (5)      |                                    |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  |                                    | read very_important_count (5)      |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  | add 1 (6)                          |                                    |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  |                                    | add 1 (6)                          |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  | write very_important_count (6)     |                                    |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+  |                                    | write very_important_count (6)     |
+  +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+
+
+Race Conditions and Critical Regions
+------------------------------------
+
+This overlap, where the result depends on the relative timing of
+multiple tasks, is called a race condition. The piece of code containing
+the concurrency issue is called a critical region. And especially since
+Linux starting running on SMP machines, they became one of the major
+issues in kernel design and implementation.
+
+Preemption can have the same effect, even if there is only one CPU: by
+preempting one task during the critical region, we have exactly the same
+race condition. In this case the thread which preempts might run the
+critical region itself.
+
+The solution is to recognize when these simultaneous accesses occur, and
+use locks to make sure that only one instance can enter the critical
+region at any time. There are many friendly primitives in the Linux
+kernel to help you do this. And then there are the unfriendly
+primitives, but I'll pretend they don't exist.
+
+Locking in the Linux Kernel
+===========================
+
+If I could give you one piece of advice: never sleep with anyone crazier
+than yourself. But if I had to give you advice on locking: **keep it
+simple**.
+
+Be reluctant to introduce new locks.
+
+Strangely enough, this last one is the exact reverse of my advice when
+you **have** slept with someone crazier than yourself. And you should
+think about getting a big dog.
+
+Two Main Types of Kernel Locks: Spinlocks and Mutexes
+-----------------------------------------------------
+
+There are two main types of kernel locks. The fundamental type is the
+spinlock (``include/asm/spinlock.h``), which is a very simple
+single-holder lock: if you can't get the spinlock, you keep trying
+(spinning) until you can. Spinlocks are very small and fast, and can be
+used anywhere.
+
+The second type is a mutex (``include/linux/mutex.h``): it is like a
+spinlock, but you may block holding a mutex. If you can't lock a mutex,
+your task will suspend itself, and be woken up when the mutex is
+released. This means the CPU can do something else while you are
+waiting. There are many cases when you simply can't sleep (see
+`What Functions Are Safe To Call From Interrupts? <#sleeping-things>`__),
+and so have to use a spinlock instead.
+
+Neither type of lock is recursive: see
+`Deadlock: Simple and Advanced <#deadlock>`__.
+
+Locks and Uniprocessor Kernels
+------------------------------
+
+For kernels compiled without ``CONFIG_SMP``, and without
+``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` spinlocks do not exist at all. This is an excellent
+design decision: when no-one else can run at the same time, there is no
+reason to have a lock.
+
+If the kernel is compiled without ``CONFIG_SMP``, but ``CONFIG_PREEMPT``
+is set, then spinlocks simply disable preemption, which is sufficient to
+prevent any races. For most purposes, we can think of preemption as
+equivalent to SMP, and not worry about it separately.
+
+You should always test your locking code with ``CONFIG_SMP`` and
+``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` enabled, even if you don't have an SMP test box,
+because it will still catch some kinds of locking bugs.
+
+Mutexes still exist, because they are required for synchronization
+between user contexts, as we will see below.
+
+Locking Only In User Context
+----------------------------
+
+If you have a data structure which is only ever accessed from user
+context, then you can use a simple mutex (``include/linux/mutex.h``) to
+protect it. This is the most trivial case: you initialize the mutex.
+Then you can call :c:func:`mutex_lock_interruptible()` to grab the
+mutex, and :c:func:`mutex_unlock()` to release it. There is also a
+:c:func:`mutex_lock()`, which should be avoided, because it will
+not return if a signal is received.
+
+Example: ``net/netfilter/nf_sockopt.c`` allows registration of new
+:c:func:`setsockopt()` and :c:func:`getsockopt()` calls, with
+:c:func:`nf_register_sockopt()`. Registration and de-registration
+are only done on module load and unload (and boot time, where there is
+no concurrency), and the list of registrations is only consulted for an
+unknown :c:func:`setsockopt()` or :c:func:`getsockopt()` system
+call. The ``nf_sockopt_mutex`` is perfect to protect this, especially
+since the setsockopt and getsockopt calls may well sleep.
+
+Locking Between User Context and Softirqs
+-----------------------------------------
+
+If a softirq shares data with user context, you have two problems.
+Firstly, the current user context can be interrupted by a softirq, and
+secondly, the critical region could be entered from another CPU. This is
+where :c:func:`spin_lock_bh()` (``include/linux/spinlock.h``) is
+used. It disables softirqs on that CPU, then grabs the lock.
+:c:func:`spin_unlock_bh()` does the reverse. (The '_bh' suffix is
+a historical reference to "Bottom Halves", the old name for software
+interrupts. It should really be called spin_lock_softirq()' in a
+perfect world).
+
+Note that you can also use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` or
+:c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` here, which stop hardware interrupts
+as well: see `Hard IRQ Context <#hardirq-context>`__.
+
+This works perfectly for UP as well: the spin lock vanishes, and this
+macro simply becomes :c:func:`local_bh_disable()`
+(``include/linux/interrupt.h``), which protects you from the softirq
+being run.
+
+Locking Between User Context and Tasklets
+-----------------------------------------
+
+This is exactly the same as above, because tasklets are actually run
+from a softirq.
+
+Locking Between User Context and Timers
+---------------------------------------
+
+This, too, is exactly the same as above, because timers are actually run
+from a softirq. From a locking point of view, tasklets and timers are
+identical.
+
+Locking Between Tasklets/Timers
+-------------------------------
+
+Sometimes a tasklet or timer might want to share data with another
+tasklet or timer.
+
+The Same Tasklet/Timer
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Since a tasklet is never run on two CPUs at once, you don't need to
+worry about your tasklet being reentrant (running twice at once), even
+on SMP.
+
+Different Tasklets/Timers
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+If another tasklet/timer wants to share data with your tasklet or timer
+, you will both need to use :c:func:`spin_lock()` and
+:c:func:`spin_unlock()` calls. :c:func:`spin_lock_bh()` is
+unnecessary here, as you are already in a tasklet, and none will be run
+on the same CPU.
+
+Locking Between Softirqs
+------------------------
+
+Often a softirq might want to share data with itself or a tasklet/timer.
+
+The Same Softirq
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The same softirq can run on the other CPUs: you can use a per-CPU array
+(see `Per-CPU Data <#per-cpu>`__) for better performance. If you're
+going so far as to use a softirq, you probably care about scalable
+performance enough to justify the extra complexity.
+
+You'll need to use :c:func:`spin_lock()` and
+:c:func:`spin_unlock()` for shared data.
+
+Different Softirqs
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+You'll need to use :c:func:`spin_lock()` and
+:c:func:`spin_unlock()` for shared data, whether it be a timer,
+tasklet, different softirq or the same or another softirq: any of them
+could be running on a different CPU.
+
+Hard IRQ Context
+================
+
+Hardware interrupts usually communicate with a tasklet or softirq.
+Frequently this involves putting work in a queue, which the softirq will
+take out.
+
+Locking Between Hard IRQ and Softirqs/Tasklets
+----------------------------------------------
+
+If a hardware irq handler shares data with a softirq, you have two
+concerns. Firstly, the softirq processing can be interrupted by a
+hardware interrupt, and secondly, the critical region could be entered
+by a hardware interrupt on another CPU. This is where
+:c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` is used. It is defined to disable
+interrupts on that cpu, then grab the lock.
+:c:func:`spin_unlock_irq()` does the reverse.
+
+The irq handler does not to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because
+the softirq cannot run while the irq handler is running: it can use
+:c:func:`spin_lock()`, which is slightly faster. The only exception
+would be if a different hardware irq handler uses the same lock:
+:c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` will stop that from interrupting us.
+
+This works perfectly for UP as well: the spin lock vanishes, and this
+macro simply becomes :c:func:`local_irq_disable()`
+(``include/asm/smp.h``), which protects you from the softirq/tasklet/BH
+being run.
+
+:c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` (``include/linux/spinlock.h``) is a
+variant which saves whether interrupts were on or off in a flags word,
+which is passed to :c:func:`spin_unlock_irqrestore()`. This means
+that the same code can be used inside an hard irq handler (where
+interrupts are already off) and in softirqs (where the irq disabling is
+required).
+
+Note that softirqs (and hence tasklets and timers) are run on return
+from hardware interrupts, so :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` also stops
+these. In that sense, :c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` is the most
+general and powerful locking function.
+
+Locking Between Two Hard IRQ Handlers
+-------------------------------------
+
+It is rare to have to share data between two IRQ handlers, but if you
+do, :c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` should be used: it is
+architecture-specific whether all interrupts are disabled inside irq
+handlers themselves.
+
+Cheat Sheet For Locking
+=======================
+
+Pete Zaitcev gives the following summary:
+
+-  If you are in a process context (any syscall) and want to lock other
+   process out, use a mutex. You can take a mutex and sleep
+   (``copy_from_user*(`` or ``kmalloc(x,GFP_KERNEL)``).
+
+-  Otherwise (== data can be touched in an interrupt), use
+   :c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` and
+   :c:func:`spin_unlock_irqrestore()`.
+
+-  Avoid holding spinlock for more than 5 lines of code and across any
+   function call (except accessors like :c:func:`readb()`).
+
+Table of Minimum Requirements
+-----------------------------
+
+The following table lists the **minimum** locking requirements between
+various contexts. In some cases, the same context can only be running on
+one CPU at a time, so no locking is required for that context (eg. a
+particular thread can only run on one CPU at a time, but if it needs
+shares data with another thread, locking is required).
+
+Remember the advice above: you can always use
+:c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()`, which is a superset of all other
+spinlock primitives.
+
+============== ============= ============= ========= ========= ========= ========= ======= ======= ============== ==============
+.              IRQ Handler A IRQ Handler B Softirq A Softirq B Tasklet A Tasklet B Timer A Timer B User Context A User Context B
+============== ============= ============= ========= ========= ========= ========= ======= ======= ============== ==============
+IRQ Handler A  None
+IRQ Handler B  SLIS          None
+Softirq A      SLI           SLI           SL
+Softirq B      SLI           SLI           SL        SL
+Tasklet A      SLI           SLI           SL        SL        None
+Tasklet B      SLI           SLI           SL        SL        SL        None
+Timer A        SLI           SLI           SL        SL        SL        SL        None
+Timer B        SLI           SLI           SL        SL        SL        SL        SL      None
+User Context A SLI           SLI           SLBH      SLBH      SLBH      SLBH      SLBH    SLBH    None
+User Context B SLI           SLI           SLBH      SLBH      SLBH      SLBH      SLBH    SLBH    MLI            None
+============== ============= ============= ========= ========= ========= ========= ======= ======= ============== ==============
+
+Table: Table of Locking Requirements
+
++--------+----------------------------+
+| SLIS   | spin_lock_irqsave          |
++--------+----------------------------+
+| SLI    | spin_lock_irq              |
++--------+----------------------------+
+| SL     | spin_lock                  |
++--------+----------------------------+
+| SLBH   | spin_lock_bh               |
++--------+----------------------------+
+| MLI    | mutex_lock_interruptible   |
++--------+----------------------------+
+
+Table: Legend for Locking Requirements Table
+
+The trylock Functions
+=====================
+
+There are functions that try to acquire a lock only once and immediately
+return a value telling about success or failure to acquire the lock.
+They can be used if you need no access to the data protected with the
+lock when some other thread is holding the lock. You should acquire the
+lock later if you then need access to the data protected with the lock.
+
+:c:func:`spin_trylock()` does not spin but returns non-zero if it
+acquires the spinlock on the first try or 0 if not. This function can be
+used in all contexts like :c:func:`spin_lock()`: you must have
+disabled the contexts that might interrupt you and acquire the spin
+lock.
+
+:c:func:`mutex_trylock()` does not suspend your task but returns
+non-zero if it could lock the mutex on the first try or 0 if not. This
+function cannot be safely used in hardware or software interrupt
+contexts despite not sleeping.
+
+Common Examples
+===============
+
+Let's step through a simple example: a cache of number to name mappings.
+The cache keeps a count of how often each of the objects is used, and
+when it gets full, throws out the least used one.
+
+All In User Context
+-------------------
+
+For our first example, we assume that all operations are in user context
+(ie. from system calls), so we can sleep. This means we can use a mutex
+to protect the cache and all the objects within it. Here's the code::
+
+    #include <linux/list.h>
+    #include <linux/slab.h>
+    #include <linux/string.h>
+    #include <linux/mutex.h>
+    #include <asm/errno.h>
+
+    struct object
+    {
+            struct list_head list;
+            int id;
+            char name[32];
+            int popularity;
+    };
+
+    /* Protects the cache, cache_num, and the objects within it */
+    static DEFINE_MUTEX(cache_lock);
+    static LIST_HEAD(cache);
+    static unsigned int cache_num = 0;
+    #define MAX_CACHE_SIZE 10
+
+    /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+    static struct object *__cache_find(int id)
+    {
+            struct object *i;
+
+            list_for_each_entry(i, &cache, list)
+                    if (i->id == id) {
+                            i->popularity++;
+                            return i;
+                    }
+            return NULL;
+    }
+
+    /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+    static void __cache_delete(struct object *obj)
+    {
+            BUG_ON(!obj);
+            list_del(&obj->list);
+            kfree(obj);
+            cache_num--;
+    }
+
+    /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+    static void __cache_add(struct object *obj)
+    {
+            list_add(&obj->list, &cache);
+            if (++cache_num > MAX_CACHE_SIZE) {
+                    struct object *i, *outcast = NULL;
+                    list_for_each_entry(i, &cache, list) {
+                            if (!outcast || i->popularity < outcast->popularity)
+                                    outcast = i;
+                    }
+                    __cache_delete(outcast);
+            }
+    }
+
+    int cache_add(int id, const char *name)
+    {
+            struct object *obj;
+
+            if ((obj = kmalloc(sizeof(*obj), GFP_KERNEL)) == NULL)
+                    return -ENOMEM;
+
+            strlcpy(obj->name, name, sizeof(obj->name));
+            obj->id = id;
+            obj->popularity = 0;
+
+            mutex_lock(&cache_lock);
+            __cache_add(obj);
+            mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
+            return 0;
+    }
+
+    void cache_delete(int id)
+    {
+            mutex_lock(&cache_lock);
+            __cache_delete(__cache_find(id));
+            mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
+    }
+
+    int cache_find(int id, char *name)
+    {
+            struct object *obj;
+            int ret = -ENOENT;
+
+            mutex_lock(&cache_lock);
+            obj = __cache_find(id);
+            if (obj) {
+                    ret = 0;
+                    strcpy(name, obj->name);
+            }
+            mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
+            return ret;
+    }
+
+Note that we always make sure we have the cache_lock when we add,
+delete, or look up the cache: both the cache infrastructure itself and
+the contents of the objects are protected by the lock. In this case it's
+easy, since we copy the data for the user, and never let them access the
+objects directly.
+
+There is a slight (and common) optimization here: in
+:c:func:`cache_add()` we set up the fields of the object before
+grabbing the lock. This is safe, as no-one else can access it until we
+put it in cache.
+
+Accessing From Interrupt Context
+--------------------------------
+
+Now consider the case where :c:func:`cache_find()` can be called
+from interrupt context: either a hardware interrupt or a softirq. An
+example would be a timer which deletes object from the cache.
+
+The change is shown below, in standard patch format: the ``-`` are lines
+which are taken away, and the ``+`` are lines which are added.
+
+::
+
+    --- cache.c.usercontext 2003-12-09 13:58:54.000000000 +1100
+    +++ cache.c.interrupt   2003-12-09 14:07:49.000000000 +1100
+    @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
+             int popularity;
+     };
+
+    -static DEFINE_MUTEX(cache_lock);
+    +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(cache_lock);
+     static LIST_HEAD(cache);
+     static unsigned int cache_num = 0;
+     #define MAX_CACHE_SIZE 10
+    @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
+     int cache_add(int id, const char *name)
+     {
+             struct object *obj;
+    +        unsigned long flags;
+
+             if ((obj = kmalloc(sizeof(*obj), GFP_KERNEL)) == NULL)
+                     return -ENOMEM;
+    @@ -63,30 +64,33 @@
+             obj->id = id;
+             obj->popularity = 0;
+
+    -        mutex_lock(&cache_lock);
+    +        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             __cache_add(obj);
+    -        mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
+    +        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+             return 0;
+     }
+
+     void cache_delete(int id)
+     {
+    -        mutex_lock(&cache_lock);
+    +        unsigned long flags;
+    +
+    +        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             __cache_delete(__cache_find(id));
+    -        mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
+    +        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+     }
+
+     int cache_find(int id, char *name)
+     {
+             struct object *obj;
+             int ret = -ENOENT;
+    +        unsigned long flags;
+
+    -        mutex_lock(&cache_lock);
+    +        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             obj = __cache_find(id);
+             if (obj) {
+                     ret = 0;
+                     strcpy(name, obj->name);
+             }
+    -        mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
+    +        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+             return ret;
+     }
+
+Note that the :c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` will turn off
+interrupts if they are on, otherwise does nothing (if we are already in
+an interrupt handler), hence these functions are safe to call from any
+context.
+
+Unfortunately, :c:func:`cache_add()` calls :c:func:`kmalloc()`
+with the ``GFP_KERNEL`` flag, which is only legal in user context. I
+have assumed that :c:func:`cache_add()` is still only called in
+user context, otherwise this should become a parameter to
+:c:func:`cache_add()`.
+
+Exposing Objects Outside This File
+----------------------------------
+
+If our objects contained more information, it might not be sufficient to
+copy the information in and out: other parts of the code might want to
+keep pointers to these objects, for example, rather than looking up the
+id every time. This produces two problems.
+
+The first problem is that we use the ``cache_lock`` to protect objects:
+we'd need to make this non-static so the rest of the code can use it.
+This makes locking trickier, as it is no longer all in one place.
+
+The second problem is the lifetime problem: if another structure keeps a
+pointer to an object, it presumably expects that pointer to remain
+valid. Unfortunately, this is only guaranteed while you hold the lock,
+otherwise someone might call :c:func:`cache_delete()` and even
+worse, add another object, re-using the same address.
+
+As there is only one lock, you can't hold it forever: no-one else would
+get any work done.
+
+The solution to this problem is to use a reference count: everyone who
+has a pointer to the object increases it when they first get the object,
+and drops the reference count when they're finished with it. Whoever
+drops it to zero knows it is unused, and can actually delete it.
+
+Here is the code::
+
+    --- cache.c.interrupt   2003-12-09 14:25:43.000000000 +1100
+    +++ cache.c.refcnt  2003-12-09 14:33:05.000000000 +1100
+    @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
+     struct object
+     {
+             struct list_head list;
+    +        unsigned int refcnt;
+             int id;
+             char name[32];
+             int popularity;
+    @@ -17,6 +18,35 @@
+     static unsigned int cache_num = 0;
+     #define MAX_CACHE_SIZE 10
+
+    +static void __object_put(struct object *obj)
+    +{
+    +        if (--obj->refcnt == 0)
+    +                kfree(obj);
+    +}
+    +
+    +static void __object_get(struct object *obj)
+    +{
+    +        obj->refcnt++;
+    +}
+    +
+    +void object_put(struct object *obj)
+    +{
+    +        unsigned long flags;
+    +
+    +        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +        __object_put(obj);
+    +        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +}
+    +
+    +void object_get(struct object *obj)
+    +{
+    +        unsigned long flags;
+    +
+    +        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +        __object_get(obj);
+    +        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +}
+    +
+     /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+     static struct object *__cache_find(int id)
+     {
+    @@ -35,6 +65,7 @@
+     {
+             BUG_ON(!obj);
+             list_del(&obj->list);
+    +        __object_put(obj);
+             cache_num--;
+     }
+
+    @@ -63,6 +94,7 @@
+             strlcpy(obj->name, name, sizeof(obj->name));
+             obj->id = id;
+             obj->popularity = 0;
+    +        obj->refcnt = 1; /* The cache holds a reference */
+
+             spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             __cache_add(obj);
+    @@ -79,18 +111,15 @@
+             spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+     }
+
+    -int cache_find(int id, char *name)
+    +struct object *cache_find(int id)
+     {
+             struct object *obj;
+    -        int ret = -ENOENT;
+             unsigned long flags;
+
+             spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             obj = __cache_find(id);
+    -        if (obj) {
+    -                ret = 0;
+    -                strcpy(name, obj->name);
+    -        }
+    +        if (obj)
+    +                __object_get(obj);
+             spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+    -        return ret;
+    +        return obj;
+     }
+
+We encapsulate the reference counting in the standard 'get' and 'put'
+functions. Now we can return the object itself from
+:c:func:`cache_find()` which has the advantage that the user can
+now sleep holding the object (eg. to :c:func:`copy_to_user()` to
+name to userspace).
+
+The other point to note is that I said a reference should be held for
+every pointer to the object: thus the reference count is 1 when first
+inserted into the cache. In some versions the framework does not hold a
+reference count, but they are more complicated.
+
+Using Atomic Operations For The Reference Count
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+In practice, :c:type:`atomic_t` would usually be used for refcnt. There are a
+number of atomic operations defined in ``include/asm/atomic.h``: these
+are guaranteed to be seen atomically from all CPUs in the system, so no
+lock is required. In this case, it is simpler than using spinlocks,
+although for anything non-trivial using spinlocks is clearer. The
+:c:func:`atomic_inc()` and :c:func:`atomic_dec_and_test()`
+are used instead of the standard increment and decrement operators, and
+the lock is no longer used to protect the reference count itself.
+
+::
+
+    --- cache.c.refcnt  2003-12-09 15:00:35.000000000 +1100
+    +++ cache.c.refcnt-atomic   2003-12-11 15:49:42.000000000 +1100
+    @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
+     struct object
+     {
+             struct list_head list;
+    -        unsigned int refcnt;
+    +        atomic_t refcnt;
+             int id;
+             char name[32];
+             int popularity;
+    @@ -18,33 +18,15 @@
+     static unsigned int cache_num = 0;
+     #define MAX_CACHE_SIZE 10
+
+    -static void __object_put(struct object *obj)
+    -{
+    -        if (--obj->refcnt == 0)
+    -                kfree(obj);
+    -}
+    -
+    -static void __object_get(struct object *obj)
+    -{
+    -        obj->refcnt++;
+    -}
+    -
+     void object_put(struct object *obj)
+     {
+    -        unsigned long flags;
+    -
+    -        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+    -        __object_put(obj);
+    -        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +        if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt))
+    +                kfree(obj);
+     }
+
+     void object_get(struct object *obj)
+     {
+    -        unsigned long flags;
+    -
+    -        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+    -        __object_get(obj);
+    -        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +        atomic_inc(&obj->refcnt);
+     }
+
+     /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+    @@ -65,7 +47,7 @@
+     {
+             BUG_ON(!obj);
+             list_del(&obj->list);
+    -        __object_put(obj);
+    +        object_put(obj);
+             cache_num--;
+     }
+
+    @@ -94,7 +76,7 @@
+             strlcpy(obj->name, name, sizeof(obj->name));
+             obj->id = id;
+             obj->popularity = 0;
+    -        obj->refcnt = 1; /* The cache holds a reference */
+    +        atomic_set(&obj->refcnt, 1); /* The cache holds a reference */
+
+             spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             __cache_add(obj);
+    @@ -119,7 +101,7 @@
+             spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             obj = __cache_find(id);
+             if (obj)
+    -                __object_get(obj);
+    +                object_get(obj);
+             spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+             return obj;
+     }
+
+Protecting The Objects Themselves
+---------------------------------
+
+In these examples, we assumed that the objects (except the reference
+counts) never changed once they are created. If we wanted to allow the
+name to change, there are three possibilities:
+
+-  You can make ``cache_lock`` non-static, and tell people to grab that
+   lock before changing the name in any object.
+
+-  You can provide a :c:func:`cache_obj_rename()` which grabs this
+   lock and changes the name for the caller, and tell everyone to use
+   that function.
+
+-  You can make the ``cache_lock`` protect only the cache itself, and
+   use another lock to protect the name.
+
+Theoretically, you can make the locks as fine-grained as one lock for
+every field, for every object. In practice, the most common variants
+are:
+
+-  One lock which protects the infrastructure (the ``cache`` list in
+   this example) and all the objects. This is what we have done so far.
+
+-  One lock which protects the infrastructure (including the list
+   pointers inside the objects), and one lock inside the object which
+   protects the rest of that object.
+
+-  Multiple locks to protect the infrastructure (eg. one lock per hash
+   chain), possibly with a separate per-object lock.
+
+Here is the "lock-per-object" implementation:
+
+::
+
+    --- cache.c.refcnt-atomic   2003-12-11 15:50:54.000000000 +1100
+    +++ cache.c.perobjectlock   2003-12-11 17:15:03.000000000 +1100
+    @@ -6,11 +6,17 @@
+
+     struct object
+     {
+    +        /* These two protected by cache_lock. */
+             struct list_head list;
+    +        int popularity;
+    +
+             atomic_t refcnt;
+    +
+    +        /* Doesn't change once created. */
+             int id;
+    +
+    +        spinlock_t lock; /* Protects the name */
+             char name[32];
+    -        int popularity;
+     };
+
+     static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(cache_lock);
+    @@ -77,6 +84,7 @@
+             obj->id = id;
+             obj->popularity = 0;
+             atomic_set(&obj->refcnt, 1); /* The cache holds a reference */
+    +        spin_lock_init(&obj->lock);
+
+             spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+             __cache_add(obj);
+
+Note that I decide that the popularity count should be protected by the
+``cache_lock`` rather than the per-object lock: this is because it (like
+the :c:type:`struct list_head <list_head>` inside the object)
+is logically part of the infrastructure. This way, I don't need to grab
+the lock of every object in :c:func:`__cache_add()` when seeking
+the least popular.
+
+I also decided that the id member is unchangeable, so I don't need to
+grab each object lock in :c:func:`__cache_find()` to examine the
+id: the object lock is only used by a caller who wants to read or write
+the name field.
+
+Note also that I added a comment describing what data was protected by
+which locks. This is extremely important, as it describes the runtime
+behavior of the code, and can be hard to gain from just reading. And as
+Alan Cox says, “Lock data, not code”.
+
+Common Problems
+===============
+
+Deadlock: Simple and Advanced
+-----------------------------
+
+There is a coding bug where a piece of code tries to grab a spinlock
+twice: it will spin forever, waiting for the lock to be released
+(spinlocks, rwlocks and mutexes are not recursive in Linux). This is
+trivial to diagnose: not a
+stay-up-five-nights-talk-to-fluffy-code-bunnies kind of problem.
+
+For a slightly more complex case, imagine you have a region shared by a
+softirq and user context. If you use a :c:func:`spin_lock()` call
+to protect it, it is possible that the user context will be interrupted
+by the softirq while it holds the lock, and the softirq will then spin
+forever trying to get the same lock.
+
+Both of these are called deadlock, and as shown above, it can occur even
+with a single CPU (although not on UP compiles, since spinlocks vanish
+on kernel compiles with ``CONFIG_SMP``\ =n. You'll still get data
+corruption in the second example).
+
+This complete lockup is easy to diagnose: on SMP boxes the watchdog
+timer or compiling with ``DEBUG_SPINLOCK`` set
+(``include/linux/spinlock.h``) will show this up immediately when it
+happens.
+
+A more complex problem is the so-called 'deadly embrace', involving two
+or more locks. Say you have a hash table: each entry in the table is a
+spinlock, and a chain of hashed objects. Inside a softirq handler, you
+sometimes want to alter an object from one place in the hash to another:
+you grab the spinlock of the old hash chain and the spinlock of the new
+hash chain, and delete the object from the old one, and insert it in the
+new one.
+
+There are two problems here. First, if your code ever tries to move the
+object to the same chain, it will deadlock with itself as it tries to
+lock it twice. Secondly, if the same softirq on another CPU is trying to
+move another object in the reverse direction, the following could
+happen:
+
++-----------------------+-----------------------+
+| CPU 1                 | CPU 2                 |
++=======================+=======================+
+| Grab lock A -> OK     | Grab lock B -> OK     |
++-----------------------+-----------------------+
+| Grab lock B -> spin   | Grab lock A -> spin   |
++-----------------------+-----------------------+
+
+Table: Consequences
+
+The two CPUs will spin forever, waiting for the other to give up their
+lock. It will look, smell, and feel like a crash.
+
+Preventing Deadlock
+-------------------
+
+Textbooks will tell you that if you always lock in the same order, you
+will never get this kind of deadlock. Practice will tell you that this
+approach doesn't scale: when I create a new lock, I don't understand
+enough of the kernel to figure out where in the 5000 lock hierarchy it
+will fit.
+
+The best locks are encapsulated: they never get exposed in headers, and
+are never held around calls to non-trivial functions outside the same
+file. You can read through this code and see that it will never
+deadlock, because it never tries to grab another lock while it has that
+one. People using your code don't even need to know you are using a
+lock.
+
+A classic problem here is when you provide callbacks or hooks: if you
+call these with the lock held, you risk simple deadlock, or a deadly
+embrace (who knows what the callback will do?). Remember, the other
+programmers are out to get you, so don't do this.
+
+Overzealous Prevention Of Deadlocks
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Deadlocks are problematic, but not as bad as data corruption. Code which
+grabs a read lock, searches a list, fails to find what it wants, drops
+the read lock, grabs a write lock and inserts the object has a race
+condition.
+
+If you don't see why, please stay the fuck away from my code.
+
+Racing Timers: A Kernel Pastime
+-------------------------------
+
+Timers can produce their own special problems with races. Consider a
+collection of objects (list, hash, etc) where each object has a timer
+which is due to destroy it.
+
+If you want to destroy the entire collection (say on module removal),
+you might do the following::
+
+            /* THIS CODE BAD BAD BAD BAD: IF IT WAS ANY WORSE IT WOULD USE
+               HUNGARIAN NOTATION */
+            spin_lock_bh(&list_lock);
+
+            while (list) {
+                    struct foo *next = list->next;
+                    del_timer(&list->timer);
+                    kfree(list);
+                    list = next;
+            }
+
+            spin_unlock_bh(&list_lock);
+
+
+Sooner or later, this will crash on SMP, because a timer can have just
+gone off before the :c:func:`spin_lock_bh()`, and it will only get
+the lock after we :c:func:`spin_unlock_bh()`, and then try to free
+the element (which has already been freed!).
+
+This can be avoided by checking the result of
+:c:func:`del_timer()`: if it returns 1, the timer has been deleted.
+If 0, it means (in this case) that it is currently running, so we can
+do::
+
+            retry:
+                    spin_lock_bh(&list_lock);
+
+                    while (list) {
+                            struct foo *next = list->next;
+                            if (!del_timer(&list->timer)) {
+                                    /* Give timer a chance to delete this */
+                                    spin_unlock_bh(&list_lock);
+                                    goto retry;
+                            }
+                            kfree(list);
+                            list = next;
+                    }
+
+                    spin_unlock_bh(&list_lock);
+
+
+Another common problem is deleting timers which restart themselves (by
+calling :c:func:`add_timer()` at the end of their timer function).
+Because this is a fairly common case which is prone to races, you should
+use :c:func:`del_timer_sync()` (``include/linux/timer.h``) to
+handle this case. It returns the number of times the timer had to be
+deleted before we finally stopped it from adding itself back in.
+
+Locking Speed
+=============
+
+There are three main things to worry about when considering speed of
+some code which does locking. First is concurrency: how many things are
+going to be waiting while someone else is holding a lock. Second is the
+time taken to actually acquire and release an uncontended lock. Third is
+using fewer, or smarter locks. I'm assuming that the lock is used fairly
+often: otherwise, you wouldn't be concerned about efficiency.
+
+Concurrency depends on how long the lock is usually held: you should
+hold the lock for as long as needed, but no longer. In the cache
+example, we always create the object without the lock held, and then
+grab the lock only when we are ready to insert it in the list.
+
+Acquisition times depend on how much damage the lock operations do to
+the pipeline (pipeline stalls) and how likely it is that this CPU was
+the last one to grab the lock (ie. is the lock cache-hot for this CPU):
+on a machine with more CPUs, this likelihood drops fast. Consider a
+700MHz Intel Pentium III: an instruction takes about 0.7ns, an atomic
+increment takes about 58ns, a lock which is cache-hot on this CPU takes
+160ns, and a cacheline transfer from another CPU takes an additional 170
+to 360ns. (These figures from Paul McKenney's `Linux Journal RCU
+article <http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6993>`__).
+
+These two aims conflict: holding a lock for a short time might be done
+by splitting locks into parts (such as in our final per-object-lock
+example), but this increases the number of lock acquisitions, and the
+results are often slower than having a single lock. This is another
+reason to advocate locking simplicity.
+
+The third concern is addressed below: there are some methods to reduce
+the amount of locking which needs to be done.
+
+Read/Write Lock Variants
+------------------------
+
+Both spinlocks and mutexes have read/write variants: ``rwlock_t`` and
+:c:type:`struct rw_semaphore <rw_semaphore>`. These divide
+users into two classes: the readers and the writers. If you are only
+reading the data, you can get a read lock, but to write to the data you
+need the write lock. Many people can hold a read lock, but a writer must
+be sole holder.
+
+If your code divides neatly along reader/writer lines (as our cache code
+does), and the lock is held by readers for significant lengths of time,
+using these locks can help. They are slightly slower than the normal
+locks though, so in practice ``rwlock_t`` is not usually worthwhile.
+
+Avoiding Locks: Read Copy Update
+--------------------------------
+
+There is a special method of read/write locking called Read Copy Update.
+Using RCU, the readers can avoid taking a lock altogether: as we expect
+our cache to be read more often than updated (otherwise the cache is a
+waste of time), it is a candidate for this optimization.
+
+How do we get rid of read locks? Getting rid of read locks means that
+writers may be changing the list underneath the readers. That is
+actually quite simple: we can read a linked list while an element is
+being added if the writer adds the element very carefully. For example,
+adding ``new`` to a single linked list called ``list``::
+
+            new->next = list->next;
+            wmb();
+            list->next = new;
+
+
+The :c:func:`wmb()` is a write memory barrier. It ensures that the
+first operation (setting the new element's ``next`` pointer) is complete
+and will be seen by all CPUs, before the second operation is (putting
+the new element into the list). This is important, since modern
+compilers and modern CPUs can both reorder instructions unless told
+otherwise: we want a reader to either not see the new element at all, or
+see the new element with the ``next`` pointer correctly pointing at the
+rest of the list.
+
+Fortunately, there is a function to do this for standard
+:c:type:`struct list_head <list_head>` lists:
+:c:func:`list_add_rcu()` (``include/linux/list.h``).
+
+Removing an element from the list is even simpler: we replace the
+pointer to the old element with a pointer to its successor, and readers
+will either see it, or skip over it.
+
+::
+
+            list->next = old->next;
+
+
+There is :c:func:`list_del_rcu()` (``include/linux/list.h``) which
+does this (the normal version poisons the old object, which we don't
+want).
+
+The reader must also be careful: some CPUs can look through the ``next``
+pointer to start reading the contents of the next element early, but
+don't realize that the pre-fetched contents is wrong when the ``next``
+pointer changes underneath them. Once again, there is a
+:c:func:`list_for_each_entry_rcu()` (``include/linux/list.h``)
+to help you. Of course, writers can just use
+:c:func:`list_for_each_entry()`, since there cannot be two
+simultaneous writers.
+
+Our final dilemma is this: when can we actually destroy the removed
+element? Remember, a reader might be stepping through this element in
+the list right now: if we free this element and the ``next`` pointer
+changes, the reader will jump off into garbage and crash. We need to
+wait until we know that all the readers who were traversing the list
+when we deleted the element are finished. We use
+:c:func:`call_rcu()` to register a callback which will actually
+destroy the object once all pre-existing readers are finished.
+Alternatively, :c:func:`synchronize_rcu()` may be used to block
+until all pre-existing are finished.
+
+But how does Read Copy Update know when the readers are finished? The
+method is this: firstly, the readers always traverse the list inside
+:c:func:`rcu_read_lock()`/:c:func:`rcu_read_unlock()` pairs:
+these simply disable preemption so the reader won't go to sleep while
+reading the list.
+
+RCU then waits until every other CPU has slept at least once: since
+readers cannot sleep, we know that any readers which were traversing the
+list during the deletion are finished, and the callback is triggered.
+The real Read Copy Update code is a little more optimized than this, but
+this is the fundamental idea.
+
+::
+
+    --- cache.c.perobjectlock   2003-12-11 17:15:03.000000000 +1100
+    +++ cache.c.rcupdate    2003-12-11 17:55:14.000000000 +1100
+    @@ -1,15 +1,18 @@
+     #include <linux/list.h>
+     #include <linux/slab.h>
+     #include <linux/string.h>
+    +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
+     #include <linux/mutex.h>
+     #include <asm/errno.h>
+
+     struct object
+     {
+    -        /* These two protected by cache_lock. */
+    +        /* This is protected by RCU */
+             struct list_head list;
+             int popularity;
+
+    +        struct rcu_head rcu;
+    +
+             atomic_t refcnt;
+
+             /* Doesn't change once created. */
+    @@ -40,7 +43,7 @@
+     {
+             struct object *i;
+
+    -        list_for_each_entry(i, &cache, list) {
+    +        list_for_each_entry_rcu(i, &cache, list) {
+                     if (i->id == id) {
+                             i->popularity++;
+                             return i;
+    @@ -49,19 +52,25 @@
+             return NULL;
+     }
+
+    +/* Final discard done once we know no readers are looking. */
+    +static void cache_delete_rcu(void *arg)
+    +{
+    +        object_put(arg);
+    +}
+    +
+     /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+     static void __cache_delete(struct object *obj)
+     {
+             BUG_ON(!obj);
+    -        list_del(&obj->list);
+    -        object_put(obj);
+    +        list_del_rcu(&obj->list);
+             cache_num--;
+    +        call_rcu(&obj->rcu, cache_delete_rcu);
+     }
+
+     /* Must be holding cache_lock */
+     static void __cache_add(struct object *obj)
+     {
+    -        list_add(&obj->list, &cache);
+    +        list_add_rcu(&obj->list, &cache);
+             if (++cache_num > MAX_CACHE_SIZE) {
+                     struct object *i, *outcast = NULL;
+                     list_for_each_entry(i, &cache, list) {
+    @@ -104,12 +114,11 @@
+     struct object *cache_find(int id)
+     {
+             struct object *obj;
+    -        unsigned long flags;
+
+    -        spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +        rcu_read_lock();
+             obj = __cache_find(id);
+             if (obj)
+                     object_get(obj);
+    -        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags);
+    +        rcu_read_unlock();
+             return obj;
+     }
+
+Note that the reader will alter the popularity member in
+:c:func:`__cache_find()`, and now it doesn't hold a lock. One
+solution would be to make it an ``atomic_t``, but for this usage, we
+don't really care about races: an approximate result is good enough, so
+I didn't change it.
+
+The result is that :c:func:`cache_find()` requires no
+synchronization with any other functions, so is almost as fast on SMP as
+it would be on UP.
+
+There is a further optimization possible here: remember our original
+cache code, where there were no reference counts and the caller simply
+held the lock whenever using the object? This is still possible: if you
+hold the lock, no one can delete the object, so you don't need to get
+and put the reference count.
+
+Now, because the 'read lock' in RCU is simply disabling preemption, a
+caller which always has preemption disabled between calling
+:c:func:`cache_find()` and :c:func:`object_put()` does not
+need to actually get and put the reference count: we could expose
+:c:func:`__cache_find()` by making it non-static, and such
+callers could simply call that.
+
+The benefit here is that the reference count is not written to: the
+object is not altered in any way, which is much faster on SMP machines
+due to caching.
+
+Per-CPU Data
+------------
+
+Another technique for avoiding locking which is used fairly widely is to
+duplicate information for each CPU. For example, if you wanted to keep a
+count of a common condition, you could use a spin lock and a single
+counter. Nice and simple.
+
+If that was too slow (it's usually not, but if you've got a really big
+machine to test on and can show that it is), you could instead use a
+counter for each CPU, then none of them need an exclusive lock. See
+:c:func:`DEFINE_PER_CPU()`, :c:func:`get_cpu_var()` and
+:c:func:`put_cpu_var()` (``include/linux/percpu.h``).
+
+Of particular use for simple per-cpu counters is the ``local_t`` type,
+and the :c:func:`cpu_local_inc()` and related functions, which are
+more efficient than simple code on some architectures
+(``include/asm/local.h``).
+
+Note that there is no simple, reliable way of getting an exact value of
+such a counter, without introducing more locks. This is not a problem
+for some uses.
+
+Data Which Mostly Used By An IRQ Handler
+----------------------------------------
+
+If data is always accessed from within the same IRQ handler, you don't
+need a lock at all: the kernel already guarantees that the irq handler
+will not run simultaneously on multiple CPUs.
+
+Manfred Spraul points out that you can still do this, even if the data
+is very occasionally accessed in user context or softirqs/tasklets. The
+irq handler doesn't use a lock, and all other accesses are done as so::
+
+        spin_lock(&lock);
+        disable_irq(irq);
+        ...
+        enable_irq(irq);
+        spin_unlock(&lock);
+
+The :c:func:`disable_irq()` prevents the irq handler from running
+(and waits for it to finish if it's currently running on other CPUs).
+The spinlock prevents any other accesses happening at the same time.
+Naturally, this is slower than just a :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`
+call, so it only makes sense if this type of access happens extremely
+rarely.
+
+What Functions Are Safe To Call From Interrupts?
+================================================
+
+Many functions in the kernel sleep (ie. call schedule()) directly or
+indirectly: you can never call them while holding a spinlock, or with
+preemption disabled. This also means you need to be in user context:
+calling them from an interrupt is illegal.
+
+Some Functions Which Sleep
+--------------------------
+
+The most common ones are listed below, but you usually have to read the
+code to find out if other calls are safe. If everyone else who calls it
+can sleep, you probably need to be able to sleep, too. In particular,
+registration and deregistration functions usually expect to be called
+from user context, and can sleep.
+
+-  Accesses to userspace:
+
+   -  :c:func:`copy_from_user()`
+
+   -  :c:func:`copy_to_user()`
+
+   -  :c:func:`get_user()`
+
+   -  :c:func:`put_user()`
+
+-  :c:func:`kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) <kmalloc>`
+
+-  :c:func:`mutex_lock_interruptible()` and
+   :c:func:`mutex_lock()`
+
+   There is a :c:func:`mutex_trylock()` which does not sleep.
+   Still, it must not be used inside interrupt context since its
+   implementation is not safe for that. :c:func:`mutex_unlock()`
+   will also never sleep. It cannot be used in interrupt context either
+   since a mutex must be released by the same task that acquired it.
+
+Some Functions Which Don't Sleep
+--------------------------------
+
+Some functions are safe to call from any context, or holding almost any
+lock.
+
+-  :c:func:`printk()`
+
+-  :c:func:`kfree()`
+
+-  :c:func:`add_timer()` and :c:func:`del_timer()`
+
+Mutex API reference
+===================
+
+.. kernel-doc:: include/linux/mutex.h
+   :internal:
+
+.. kernel-doc:: kernel/locking/mutex.c
+   :export:
+
+Futex API reference
+===================
+
+.. kernel-doc:: kernel/futex.c
+   :internal:
+
+Further reading
+===============
+
+-  ``Documentation/locking/spinlocks.txt``: Linus Torvalds' spinlocking
+   tutorial in the kernel sources.
+
+-  Unix Systems for Modern Architectures: Symmetric Multiprocessing and
+   Caching for Kernel Programmers:
+
+   Curt Schimmel's very good introduction to kernel level locking (not
+   written for Linux, but nearly everything applies). The book is
+   expensive, but really worth every penny to understand SMP locking.
+   [ISBN: 0201633388]
+
+Thanks
+======
+
+Thanks to Telsa Gwynne for DocBooking, neatening and adding style.
+
+Thanks to Martin Pool, Philipp Rumpf, Stephen Rothwell, Paul Mackerras,
+Ruedi Aschwanden, Alan Cox, Manfred Spraul, Tim Waugh, Pete Zaitcev,
+James Morris, Robert Love, Paul McKenney, John Ashby for proofreading,
+correcting, flaming, commenting.
+
+Thanks to the cabal for having no influence on this document.
+
+Glossary
+========
+
+preemption
+  Prior to 2.5, or when ``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` is unset, processes in user
+  context inside the kernel would not preempt each other (ie. you had that
+  CPU until you gave it up, except for interrupts). With the addition of
+  ``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` in 2.5.4, this changed: when in user context, higher
+  priority tasks can "cut in": spinlocks were changed to disable
+  preemption, even on UP.
+
+bh
+  Bottom Half: for historical reasons, functions with '_bh' in them often
+  now refer to any software interrupt, e.g. :c:func:`spin_lock_bh()`
+  blocks any software interrupt on the current CPU. Bottom halves are
+  deprecated, and will eventually be replaced by tasklets. Only one bottom
+  half will be running at any time.
+
+Hardware Interrupt / Hardware IRQ
+  Hardware interrupt request. :c:func:`in_irq()` returns true in a
+  hardware interrupt handler.
+
+Interrupt Context
+  Not user context: processing a hardware irq or software irq. Indicated
+  by the :c:func:`in_interrupt()` macro returning true.
+
+SMP
+  Symmetric Multi-Processor: kernels compiled for multiple-CPU machines.
+  (``CONFIG_SMP=y``).
+
+Software Interrupt / softirq
+  Software interrupt handler. :c:func:`in_irq()` returns false;
+  :c:func:`in_softirq()` returns true. Tasklets and softirqs both
+  fall into the category of 'software interrupts'.
+
+  Strictly speaking a softirq is one of up to 32 enumerated software
+  interrupts which can run on multiple CPUs at once. Sometimes used to
+  refer to tasklets as well (ie. all software interrupts).
+
+tasklet
+  A dynamically-registrable software interrupt, which is guaranteed to
+  only run on one CPU at a time.
+
+timer
+  A dynamically-registrable software interrupt, which is run at (or close
+  to) a given time. When running, it is just like a tasklet (in fact, they
+  are called from the ``TIMER_SOFTIRQ``).
+
+UP
+  Uni-Processor: Non-SMP. (``CONFIG_SMP=n``).
+
+User Context
+  The kernel executing on behalf of a particular process (ie. a system
+  call or trap) or kernel thread. You can tell which process with the
+  ``current`` macro.) Not to be confused with userspace. Can be
+  interrupted by software or hardware interrupts.
+
+Userspace
+  A process executing its own code outside the kernel.