Commit 0825458b authored by Paul E. McKenney's avatar Paul E. McKenney

documentation: Composability analogies

This commit expands on RCU's composability by comparing it to that of
transactional memory and of locking.
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
parent 01d3ad38
......@@ -1494,6 +1494,14 @@ in RCU implicitly splitting the enclosing RCU read-side critical
section, neither of which is conducive to a long-lived and prosperous
kernel.
<p>
It is worth noting that RCU is not alone in limiting composability.
For example, many transactional-memory implementations prohibit
composing a pair of transactions separated by an irrevocable
operation (for example, a network receive operation).
For another example, lock-based critical sections can be composed
surprisingly freely, but only if deadlock is avoided.
<p>
In short, although RCU read-side critical sections are highly composable,
care is required in some situations, just as is the case for any other
......
......@@ -1653,6 +1653,14 @@ in RCU implicitly splitting the enclosing RCU read-side critical
section, neither of which is conducive to a long-lived and prosperous
kernel.
<p>
It is worth noting that RCU is not alone in limiting composability.
For example, many transactional-memory implementations prohibit
composing a pair of transactions separated by an irrevocable
operation (for example, a network receive operation).
For another example, lock-based critical sections can be composed
surprisingly freely, but only if deadlock is avoided.
<p>
In short, although RCU read-side critical sections are highly composable,
care is required in some situations, just as is the case for any other
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment