|
@@ -1002,18 +1002,21 @@ obligation to wait for these new readers.
|
|
|
<tr><th> </th></tr>
|
|
|
<tr><th align="left">Quick Quiz:</th></tr>
|
|
|
<tr><td>
|
|
|
- Suppose that synchronize_rcu() did wait until all readers had completed.
|
|
|
- Would the updater be able to rely on this?
|
|
|
+ Suppose that synchronize_rcu() did wait until <i>all</i>
|
|
|
+ readers had completed instead of waiting only on
|
|
|
+ pre-existing readers.
|
|
|
+ For how long would the updater be able to rely on there
|
|
|
+ being no readers?
|
|
|
</td></tr>
|
|
|
<tr><th align="left">Answer:</th></tr>
|
|
|
<tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="ffffff">
|
|
|
- No.
|
|
|
+ For no time at all.
|
|
|
Even if <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> were to wait until
|
|
|
all readers had completed, a new reader might start immediately after
|
|
|
<tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> completed.
|
|
|
Therefore, the code following
|
|
|
- <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> cannot rely on there being no readers
|
|
|
- in any case.
|
|
|
+ <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> can <i>never</i> rely on there being
|
|
|
+ no readers.
|
|
|
</font></td></tr>
|
|
|
<tr><td> </td></tr>
|
|
|
</table>
|