From 4de5f89ef8498e012ba4755b9b63df28c1382690 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:04:03 -0700 Subject: doc: Update RCU documentation Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) (limited to 'Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt') diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt index b10cfe711e68..5d7759071a3e 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt @@ -263,6 +263,11 @@ Quick Quiz #2: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in rcu_barrier() returning prematurely? +The current rcu_barrier() implementation is more complex, due to the need +to avoid disturbing idle CPUs (especially on battery-powered systems) +and the need to minimally disturb non-idle CPUs in real-time systems. +However, the code above illustrates the concepts. + rcu_barrier() Summary -- cgit v1.2.3