[PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/4] doc: Present the role of READ_ONCE()

[paulmck]

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>

This commit adds an explanation of the special cases where READ_ONCE()
may be used in place of a member of the rcu_dereference() family.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst       | 7 +++++++
 Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst | 6 ++++++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
index 2efed99..bb7128e 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
@@ -314,6 +314,13 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	shared between readers and updaters.  Additional primitives
 	are provided for this case, as discussed in lockdep.txt.
 
+	One exception to this rule is when data is only ever added to
+	the linked data structure, and is never removed during any
+	time that readers might be accessing that structure.  In such
+	cases, READ_ONCE() may be used in place of rcu_dereference()
+	and the read-side markers (rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(),
+	for example) may be omitted.
+
 10.	Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section,
 	and you don't hold the appropriate update-side lock, you -must-
 	use the "_rcu()" variants of the list macros.  Failing to do so
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst
index c9667eb..f3e587a 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst
@@ -28,6 +28,12 @@ Follow these rules to keep your RCU code working properly:
 	for an example where the compiler can in fact deduce the exact
 	value of the pointer, and thus cause misordering.
 
+-	In the special case where data is added but is never removed
+	while readers are accessing the structure, READ_ONCE() may be used
+	instead of rcu_dereference().  In this case, use of READ_ONCE()
+	takes on the role of the lockless_dereference() primitive that
+	was removed in v4.15.
+
 -	You are only permitted to use rcu_dereference on pointer values.
 	The compiler simply knows too much about integral values to
 	trust it to carry dependencies through integer operations.
-- 
2.9.5