On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 07:29:00PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >From c1abebc5482939250f26cb46f4f915ddb6e9b2d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2020 19:06:25 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] defer/rcuusage: Fix minor issues
>
> Fix minor issues in recently updated rcuusage section including:
>
> o Use of nbsp
> o Order of references to figures
> o A couple of typo
>
> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
Good eyes! Applied and pushed, thank you!
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> defer/rcuusage.tex | 22 +++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/defer/rcuusage.tex b/defer/rcuusage.tex
> index 55771415..d90ab2b3 100644
> --- a/defer/rcuusage.tex
> +++ b/defer/rcuusage.tex
> @@ -105,9 +105,9 @@ and especially
> Figure~\ref{fig:defer:QSBR: Waiting for Pre-Existing Readers},
> for a discussion of RCU QSBR.)
>
> -The answer to this shown in
> +The answer to this is shown in
> Figure~\ref{fig:defer:Pre-BSD Routing Table Protected by RCU QSBR},
> -which shows that RCU QSBR's performance and scalability actuaally exceeds
> +which shows that RCU QSBR's performance and scalability actually exceeds
> that of the ideal synchronization-free workload.
>
> \QuickQuizSeries{%
> @@ -356,7 +356,7 @@ than RCU on a single CPU, and is more than \emph{four} orders of magnitude
> slower on 192~CPUs.
> In contrast, RCU scales quite well.
> In both cases, the error bars cover the full range of the measurements
> -from 30 runs, with the line being the median.
> +from 30~runs, with the line being the median.
>
> \begin{figure}[tb]
> \centering
> @@ -394,8 +394,8 @@ The error bars span the full range of data.
> \end{figure}
>
> Of course, the low performance of reader-writer locking in
> -Figures~\ref{fig:defer:Performance Advantage of Preemptible RCU Over Reader-Writer Locking}
> -and~\ref{fig:defer:Performance Advantage of RCU Over Reader-Writer Locking}
> +\cref{fig:defer:Performance Advantage of RCU Over Reader-Writer Locking,%
> +fig:defer:Performance Advantage of Preemptible RCU Over Reader-Writer Locking}
> is exaggerated by the unrealistic zero-length critical sections.
> The performance advantages of RCU decrease as the overhead of the critical
> sections increase.
> @@ -825,13 +825,13 @@ But why bother?
> Again, part of the answer is performance, as shown in
> Figures~\ref{fig:defer:Performance of RCU vs. Reference Counting}
> and~\ref{fig:defer:Performance of Preemptible RCU vs. Reference Counting},
> -again showing data taken on a 488-CPU 2.1\,GHz Intel x86 system
> +again showing data taken on a 448-CPU 2.1\,GHz Intel x86 system
> for non-preemptible and preemptible Linux-kernel RCU, respectively.
> Non-preemptible RCU's advantage over reference counting ranges from
> more than an order of magnitude at one CPU up to about four orders of
> -magnitude at 192 CPUs.
> +magnitude at 192~CPUs.
> Preemptible RCU's advantage ranges from about a factor of three at
> -one CPU up to about three orders of magnitude at 192 CPUs.
> +one CPU up to about three orders of magnitude at 192~CPUs.
>
> \begin{figure}[tb]
> \centering
> @@ -902,9 +902,9 @@ misleading.
> Perhaps the best way to think of the relationship between RCU
> and automatic garbage collectors (GCs) is that RCU resembles
> a GC in that the \emph{timing} of collection is automatically
> -determined, but that RCU differs from a GC in that: (1) the programmer
> +determined, but that RCU differs from a GC in that: (1)~the programmer
> must manually indicate when a given data structure is eligible
> -to be collected, and (2) the programmer must manually mark the
> +to be collected, and (2)~the programmer must manually mark the
> RCU read-side critical sections where references might legitimately
> be held.
>
> @@ -1140,7 +1140,7 @@ for the duration of any pre-existing RCU read-side critical sections.
>
> These algorithms typically use a validation step that checks to make
> sure that the newly referenced data structure really is the one that
> -was requested~\cite[Section 2.5]{LaninShasha1986TSM}.
> +was requested~\cite[Section~2.5]{LaninShasha1986TSM}.
> These validation checks require that portions of the data structure
> remain untouched by the free-reallocate process.
> Such validation checks are usually very hard to get right, and can
> --
> 2.17.1
>
