On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Em Fri, 25 Nov 2016 14:47:11 +0100
> "S. Fricke" <silvio.fricke@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
>> Hi Mauro,
>>
>> I have a question about the "code-block" and "::". On which situation should
>> I use "code-block" and on which condition a "::"?
>> For now I have used "::" on small one, two or three liners, and "code-block"
>> for "example code" snippets or longer code segments.
>
> They're equivalent, but :: makes the file to look nicer if someone is
> reading the text file directly.
>
> There's one difference, though: right now, I guess we're disabling
> pygments. So, "::" is assuming "code-block:: none". The default can
> be changed inside a document by adding:
>
> .. highlight:: c
>
> before using the first "::".
>
> That said, IMHO, pygments is crap :) Instead of painting the file with
> some random colors, Sphinx should instead be doing something useful,
> e. g. producing cross-references for data structures and functions.
>
> So, I wouldn't be using "highlight" there.
My rules of thumb:
Use "::" for anything that doesn't really benefit from highlighting,
especially short snippets, whether they have a pygments highlighter or
not.
Use ".. code-block:: <language>", e.g. ".. code-block:: c" for longer
code blocks that benefit from highlighting.
Do *not* use ".. highlight:: <language>" unless you have a *lot* of
short snippets that *do* benefit from highlighting (so you can use "::"
and still get highlighting for them). Best avoided altogether.
BR,
Jani.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks for a small clarification,
>> Silvio
>>
>> > Em Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:02:41 +0100
>> > Silvio Fricke <silvio.fricke@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>> >
>> > > ... and move to core-api folder.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Silvio Fricke <silvio.fricke@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > ---
>> > > Documentation/core-api/index.rst | 1 +-
>> > > Documentation/local_ops.txt => Documentation/core-api/local_ops.rst | 275 +++----
>> > > 2 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 129 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/index.rst b/Documentation/core-api/index.rst
>> > > index f3e5f5e..25b4e4a 100644
>> > > --- a/Documentation/core-api/index.rst
>> > > +++ b/Documentation/core-api/index.rst
>> > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ Kernel and driver related documentation.
>> > >
>> > > assoc_array
>> > > atomic_ops
>> > > + local_ops
>> > > workqueue
>> > >
>> > > .. only:: subproject
>> > > diff --git a/Documentation/local_ops.txt b/Documentation/core-api/local_ops.rst
>> > > similarity index 55%
>> > > rename from Documentation/local_ops.txt
>> > > rename to Documentation/core-api/local_ops.rst
>> > > index 407576a..01f1880 100644
>> > > --- a/Documentation/local_ops.txt
>> > > +++ b/Documentation/core-api/local_ops.rst
>> > > @@ -1,191 +1,208 @@
>> > > - Semantics and Behavior of Local Atomic Operations
>> > >
>> > > - Mathieu Desnoyers
>> > > +.. _local_ops:
>> > >
>> > > +=================================================
>> > > +Semantics and Behavior of Local Atomic Operations
>> > > +=================================================
>> > >
>> > > - This document explains the purpose of the local atomic operations, how
>> > > +:Author: Mathieu Desnoyers
>> > > +
>> > > +
>> > > +This document explains the purpose of the local atomic operations, how
>> > > to implement them for any given architecture and shows how they can be used
>> > > properly. It also stresses on the precautions that must be taken when reading
>> > > those local variables across CPUs when the order of memory writes matters.
>> > >
>> > > -Note that local_t based operations are not recommended for general kernel use.
>> > > -Please use the this_cpu operations instead unless there is really a special purpose.
>> > > -Most uses of local_t in the kernel have been replaced by this_cpu operations.
>> > > -this_cpu operations combine the relocation with the local_t like semantics in
>> > > -a single instruction and yield more compact and faster executing code.
>> > > +.. note::
>> > >
>> > > + Note that ``local_t`` based operations are not recommended for general
>> > > + kernel use. Please use the ``this_cpu`` operations instead unless there is
>> > > + really a special purpose. Most uses of ``local_t`` in the kernel have been
>> > > + replaced by ``this_cpu`` operations. ``this_cpu`` operations combine the
>> > > + relocation with the ``local_t`` like semantics in a single instruction and
>> > > + yield more compact and faster executing code.
>> > >
>> > > -* Purpose of local atomic operations
>> > > +
>> > > +Purpose of local atomic operations
>> > > +==================================
>> > >
>> > > Local atomic operations are meant to provide fast and highly reentrant per CPU
>> > > counters. They minimize the performance cost of standard atomic operations by
>> > > removing the LOCK prefix and memory barriers normally required to synchronize
>> > > across CPUs.
>> > >
>> > > -Having fast per CPU atomic counters is interesting in many cases : it does not
>> > > +Having fast per CPU atomic counters is interesting in many cases: it does not
>> > > require disabling interrupts to protect from interrupt handlers and it permits
>> > > coherent counters in NMI handlers. It is especially useful for tracing purposes
>> > > and for various performance monitoring counters.
>> > >
>> > > Local atomic operations only guarantee variable modification atomicity wrt the
>> > > CPU which owns the data. Therefore, care must taken to make sure that only one
>> > > -CPU writes to the local_t data. This is done by using per cpu data and making
>> > > -sure that we modify it from within a preemption safe context. It is however
>> > > -permitted to read local_t data from any CPU : it will then appear to be written
>> > > -out of order wrt other memory writes by the owner CPU.
>> > > +CPU writes to the ``local_t`` data. This is done by using per cpu data and
>> > > +making sure that we modify it from within a preemption safe context. It is
>> > > +however permitted to read ``local_t`` data from any CPU: it will then appear to
>> > > +be written out of order wrt other memory writes by the owner CPU.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -* Implementation for a given architecture
>> > > +Implementation for a given architecture
>> > > +=======================================
>> > >
>> > > -It can be done by slightly modifying the standard atomic operations : only
>> > > +It can be done by slightly modifying the standard atomic operations: only
>> > > their UP variant must be kept. It typically means removing LOCK prefix (on
>> > > i386 and x86_64) and any SMP synchronization barrier. If the architecture does
>> > > -not have a different behavior between SMP and UP, including asm-generic/local.h
>> > > -in your architecture's local.h is sufficient.
>> > > +not have a different behavior between SMP and UP, including
>> > > +``asm-generic/local.h`` in your architecture's ``local.h`` is sufficient.
>> > >
>> > > -The local_t type is defined as an opaque signed long by embedding an
>> > > -atomic_long_t inside a structure. This is made so a cast from this type to a
>> > > -long fails. The definition looks like :
>> > > +The ``local_t`` type is defined as an opaque ``signed long`` by embedding an
>> > > +``atomic_long_t`` inside a structure. This is made so a cast from this type to
>> > > +a ``long`` fails. The definition looks like::
>> > >
>> > > -typedef struct { atomic_long_t a; } local_t;
>> > > + typedef struct { atomic_long_t a; } local_t;
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -* Rules to follow when using local atomic operations
>> > > +Rules to follow when using local atomic operations
>> > > +==================================================
>> > >
>> > > -- Variables touched by local ops must be per cpu variables.
>> > > -- _Only_ the CPU owner of these variables must write to them.
>> > > -- This CPU can use local ops from any context (process, irq, softirq, nmi, ...)
>> > > - to update its local_t variables.
>> > > -- Preemption (or interrupts) must be disabled when using local ops in
>> > > - process context to make sure the process won't be migrated to a
>> > > +* Variables touched by local ops must be per cpu variables.
>> > > +* *Only* the CPU owner of these variables must write to them.
>> > > +* This CPU can use local ops from any context (process, irq, softirq, nmi, ...)
>> > > + to update its ``local_t`` variables.
>> > > +* Preemption (or interrupts) must be disabled when using local ops in
>> > > + process context to make sure the process won't be migrated to a
>> > > different CPU between getting the per-cpu variable and doing the
>> > > actual local op.
>> > > -- When using local ops in interrupt context, no special care must be
>> > > +* When using local ops in interrupt context, no special care must be
>> > > taken on a mainline kernel, since they will run on the local CPU with
>> > > preemption already disabled. I suggest, however, to explicitly
>> > > disable preemption anyway to make sure it will still work correctly on
>> > > -rt kernels.
>> > > -- Reading the local cpu variable will provide the current copy of the
>> > > +* Reading the local cpu variable will provide the current copy of the
>> > > variable.
>> > > -- Reads of these variables can be done from any CPU, because updates to
>> > > - "long", aligned, variables are always atomic. Since no memory
>> > > +* Reads of these variables can be done from any CPU, because updates to
>> > > + "``long``", aligned, variables are always atomic. Since no memory
>> > > synchronization is done by the writer CPU, an outdated copy of the
>> > > - variable can be read when reading some _other_ cpu's variables.
>> > > + variable can be read when reading some *other* cpu's variables.
>> > > +
>> > >
>> > > +How to use local atomic operations
>> > > +==================================
>> > >
>> > > -* How to use local atomic operations
>> > > +.. code-block:: c
>> >
>> > Better to use :: instead of code-block.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > -#include <linux/percpu.h>
>> > > -#include <asm/local.h>
>> > > + #include <linux/percpu.h>
>> > > + #include <asm/local.h>
>> > >
>> > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(local_t, counters) = LOCAL_INIT(0);
>> > > + static DEFINE_PER_CPU(local_t, counters) = LOCAL_INIT(0);
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -* Counting
>> > > +Counting
>> > > +========
>> > >
>> > > Counting is done on all the bits of a signed long.
>> > >
>> > > -In preemptible context, use get_cpu_var() and put_cpu_var() around local atomic
>> > > -operations : it makes sure that preemption is disabled around write access to
>> > > -the per cpu variable. For instance :
>> > > +In preemptible context, use ``get_cpu_var()`` and ``put_cpu_var()`` around
>> > > +local atomic operations: it makes sure that preemption is disabled around write
>> > > +access to the per cpu variable. For instance::
>> > >
>> > > - local_inc(&get_cpu_var(counters));
>> > > - put_cpu_var(counters);
>> > > + local_inc(&get_cpu_var(counters));
>> > > + put_cpu_var(counters);
>> > >
>> > > If you are already in a preemption-safe context, you can use
>> > > -this_cpu_ptr() instead.
>> > > +``this_cpu_ptr()`` instead. ::
>> > >
>> > > - local_inc(this_cpu_ptr(&counters));
>> > > + local_inc(this_cpu_ptr(&counters));
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -* Reading the counters
>> > > +Reading the counters
>> > > +====================
>> > >
>> > > Those local counters can be read from foreign CPUs to sum the count. Note that
>> > > the data seen by local_read across CPUs must be considered to be out of order
>> > > -relatively to other memory writes happening on the CPU that owns the data.
>> > > +relatively to other memory writes happening on the CPU that owns the data. ::
>> >
>> > Please remove the dot at the end.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > - long sum = 0;
>> > > - for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>> > > - sum += local_read(&per_cpu(counters, cpu));
>> > > + long sum = 0;
>> > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>> > > + sum += local_read(&per_cpu(counters, cpu));
>> > >
>> > > If you want to use a remote local_read to synchronize access to a resource
>> > > -between CPUs, explicit smp_wmb() and smp_rmb() memory barriers must be used
>> > > +between CPUs, explicit ``smp_wmb()`` and ``smp_rmb()`` memory barriers must be used
>> > > respectively on the writer and the reader CPUs. It would be the case if you use
>> > > -the local_t variable as a counter of bytes written in a buffer : there should
>> > > -be a smp_wmb() between the buffer write and the counter increment and also a
>> > > -smp_rmb() between the counter read and the buffer read.
>> > > -
>> > > -
>> > > -Here is a sample module which implements a basic per cpu counter using local.h.
>> > > -
>> > > ---- BEGIN ---
>> > > -/* test-local.c
>> > > - *
>> > > - * Sample module for local.h usage.
>> > > - */
>> > > -
>> > > -
>> > > -#include <asm/local.h>
>> > > -#include <linux/module.h>
>> > > -#include <linux/timer.h>
>> > > -
>> > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(local_t, counters) = LOCAL_INIT(0);
>> > > -
>> > > -static struct timer_list test_timer;
>> > > -
>> > > -/* IPI called on each CPU. */
>> > > -static void test_each(void *info)
>> > > -{
>> > > - /* Increment the counter from a non preemptible context */
>> > > - printk("Increment on cpu %d\n", smp_processor_id());
>> > > - local_inc(this_cpu_ptr(&counters));
>> > > -
>> > > - /* This is what incrementing the variable would look like within a
>> > > - * preemptible context (it disables preemption) :
>> > > - *
>> > > - * local_inc(&get_cpu_var(counters));
>> > > - * put_cpu_var(counters);
>> > > - */
>> > > -}
>> > > -
>> > > -static void do_test_timer(unsigned long data)
>> > > -{
>> > > - int cpu;
>> > > -
>> > > - /* Increment the counters */
>> > > - on_each_cpu(test_each, NULL, 1);
>> > > - /* Read all the counters */
>> > > - printk("Counters read from CPU %d\n", smp_processor_id());
>> > > - for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>> > > - printk("Read : CPU %d, count %ld\n", cpu,
>> > > - local_read(&per_cpu(counters, cpu)));
>> > > - }
>> > > - del_timer(&test_timer);
>> > > - test_timer.expires = jiffies + 1000;
>> > > - add_timer(&test_timer);
>> > > -}
>> > > -
>> > > -static int __init test_init(void)
>> > > -{
>> > > - /* initialize the timer that will increment the counter */
>> > > - init_timer(&test_timer);
>> > > - test_timer.function = do_test_timer;
>> > > - test_timer.expires = jiffies + 1;
>> > > - add_timer(&test_timer);
>> > > -
>> > > - return 0;
>> > > -}
>> > > -
>> > > -static void __exit test_exit(void)
>> > > -{
>> > > - del_timer_sync(&test_timer);
>> > > -}
>> > > -
>> > > -module_init(test_init);
>> > > -module_exit(test_exit);
>> > > -
>> > > -MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>> > > -MODULE_AUTHOR("Mathieu Desnoyers");
>> > > -MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Local Atomic Ops");
>> > > ---- END ---
>> > > +the ``local_t`` variable as a counter of bytes written in a buffer: there should
>> > > +be a ``smp_wmb()`` between the buffer write and the counter increment and also a
>> > > +``smp_rmb()`` between the counter read and the buffer read.
>> > > +
>> > > +
>> > > +Here is a sample module which implements a basic per cpu counter using
>> > > +``local.h``.
>> > > +
>> > > +.. code-block:: c
>> >
>> > Better to use :: instead of code-block.
>> >
>> > > +
>> > > + /* test-local.c
>> > > + *
>> > > + * Sample module for local.h usage.
>> > > + */
>> > > +
>> > > +
>> > > + #include <asm/local.h>
>> > > + #include <linux/module.h>
>> > > + #include <linux/timer.h>
>> > > +
>> > > + static DEFINE_PER_CPU(local_t, counters) = LOCAL_INIT(0);
>> > > +
>> > > + static struct timer_list test_timer;
>> > > +
>> > > + /* IPI called on each CPU. */
>> > > + static void test_each(void *info)
>> > > + {
>> > > + /* Increment the counter from a non preemptible context */
>> > > + printk("Increment on cpu %d\n", smp_processor_id());
>> > > + local_inc(this_cpu_ptr(&counters));
>> > > +
>> > > + /* This is what incrementing the variable would look like within a
>> > > + * preemptible context (it disables preemption) :
>> > > + *
>> > > + * local_inc(&get_cpu_var(counters));
>> > > + * put_cpu_var(counters);
>> > > + */
>> > > + }
>> > > +
>> > > + static void do_test_timer(unsigned long data)
>> > > + {
>> > > + int cpu;
>> > > +
>> > > + /* Increment the counters */
>> > > + on_each_cpu(test_each, NULL, 1);
>> > > + /* Read all the counters */
>> > > + printk("Counters read from CPU %d\n", smp_processor_id());
>> > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>> > > + printk("Read : CPU %d, count %ld\n", cpu,
>> > > + local_read(&per_cpu(counters, cpu)));
>> > > + }
>> > > + del_timer(&test_timer);
>> > > + test_timer.expires = jiffies + 1000;
>> > > + add_timer(&test_timer);
>> > > + }
>> > > +
>> > > + static int __init test_init(void)
>> > > + {
>> > > + /* initialize the timer that will increment the counter */
>> > > + init_timer(&test_timer);
>> > > + test_timer.function = do_test_timer;
>> > > + test_timer.expires = jiffies + 1;
>> > > + add_timer(&test_timer);
>> > > +
>> > > + return 0;
>> > > + }
>> > > +
>> > > + static void __exit test_exit(void)
>> > > + {
>> > > + del_timer_sync(&test_timer);
>> > > + }
>> > > +
>> > > + module_init(test_init);
>> > > + module_exit(test_exit);
>> > > +
>> > > + MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>> > > + MODULE_AUTHOR("Mathieu Desnoyers");
>> > > + MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Local Atomic Ops");
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Mauro
>>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Mauro
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
