Merge tag 'core-rcu-2020-12-14' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip

Pull RCU updates from Thomas Gleixner:
 "RCU, LKMM and KCSAN updates collected by Paul McKenney.

  RCU:
   - Avoid cpuinfo-induced IPI pileups and idle-CPU IPIs

   - Lockdep-RCU updates reducing the need for __maybe_unused

   - Tasks-RCU updates

   - Miscellaneous fixes

   - Documentation updates

   - Torture-test updates

  KCSAN:
   - updates for selftests, avoiding setting watchpoints on NULL pointers

   - fix to watchpoint encoding

  LKMM:
   - updates for documentation along with some updates to example-code
     litmus tests"

* tag 'core-rcu-2020-12-14' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: (72 commits)
  srcu: Take early exit on memory-allocation failure
  rcu/tree: Defer kvfree_rcu() allocation to a clean context
  rcu: Do not report strict GPs for outgoing CPUs
  rcu: Fix a typo in rcu_blocking_is_gp() header comment
  rcu: Prevent lockdep-RCU splats on lock acquisition/release
  rcu/tree: nocb: Avoid raising softirq for offloaded ready-to-execute CBs
  rcu,ftrace: Fix ftrace recursion
  rcu/tree: Make struct kernel_param_ops definitions const
  rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already
  rcu: Clarify nocb kthreads naming in RCU_NOCB_CPU config
  rcu: Fix single-CPU check in rcu_blocking_is_gp()
  rcu: Implement rcu_segcblist_is_offloaded() config dependent
  list.h: Update comment to explicitly note circular lists
  rcu: Panic after fixed number of stalls
  x86/smpboot:  Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier
  rcu: Allow rcu_irq_enter_check_tick() from NMI
  tools/memory-model: Label MP tests' producers and consumers
  tools/memory-model: Use "buf" and "flag" for message-passing tests
  tools/memory-model: Add types to litmus tests
  tools/memory-model: Add a glossary of LKMM terms
  ...

5 files changed, 55 insertions, 13 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
index 1ae79a10a8de..e8c84fcc0507 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
@@ -1929,16 +1929,46 @@ The Linux-kernel CPU-hotplug implementation has notifiers that are used
 to allow the various kernel subsystems (including RCU) to respond
 appropriately to a given CPU-hotplug operation. Most RCU operations may
 be invoked from CPU-hotplug notifiers, including even synchronous
-grace-period operations such as ``synchronize_rcu()`` and
-``synchronize_rcu_expedited()``.
-
-However, all-callback-wait operations such as ``rcu_barrier()`` are also
-not supported, due to the fact that there are phases of CPU-hotplug
-operations where the outgoing CPU's callbacks will not be invoked until
-after the CPU-hotplug operation ends, which could also result in
-deadlock. Furthermore, ``rcu_barrier()`` blocks CPU-hotplug operations
-during its execution, which results in another type of deadlock when
-invoked from a CPU-hotplug notifier.
+grace-period operations such as (``synchronize_rcu()`` and
+``synchronize_rcu_expedited()``).  However, these synchronous operations
+do block and therefore cannot be invoked from notifiers that execute via
+``stop_machine()``, specifically those between the ``CPUHP_AP_OFFLINE``
+and ``CPUHP_AP_ONLINE`` states.
+
+In addition, all-callback-wait operations such as ``rcu_barrier()`` may
+not be invoked from any CPU-hotplug notifier.  This restriction is due
+to the fact that there are phases of CPU-hotplug operations where the
+outgoing CPU's callbacks will not be invoked until after the CPU-hotplug
+operation ends, which could also result in deadlock. Furthermore,
+``rcu_barrier()`` blocks CPU-hotplug operations during its execution,
+which results in another type of deadlock when invoked from a CPU-hotplug
+notifier.
+
+Finally, RCU must avoid deadlocks due to interaction between hotplug,
+timers and grace period processing. It does so by maintaining its own set
+of books that duplicate the centrally maintained ``cpu_online_mask``,
+and also by reporting quiescent states explicitly when a CPU goes
+offline.  This explicit reporting of quiescent states avoids any need
+for the force-quiescent-state loop (FQS) to report quiescent states for
+offline CPUs.  However, as a debugging measure, the FQS loop does splat
+if offline CPUs block an RCU grace period for too long.
+
+An offline CPU's quiescent state will be reported either:
+
+1.  As the CPU goes offline using RCU's hotplug notifier (``rcu_report_dead()``).
+2.  When grace period initialization (``rcu_gp_init()``) detects a
+    race either with CPU offlining or with a task unblocking on a leaf
+    ``rcu_node`` structure whose CPUs are all offline.
+
+The CPU-online path (``rcu_cpu_starting()``) should never need to report
+a quiescent state for an offline CPU.  However, as a debugging measure,
+it does emit a warning if a quiescent state was not already reported
+for that CPU.
+
+During the checking/modification of RCU's hotplug bookkeeping, the
+corresponding CPU's leaf node lock is held. This avoids race conditions
+between RCU's hotplug notifier hooks, the grace period initialization
+code, and the FQS loop, all of which refer to or modify this bookkeeping.
 
 Scheduler and RCU
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst
index 2efed9926c3f..bb7128eb322e 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 c9667eb0d444..f3e587acb4de 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.
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
index fb3ff76c3e73..1a4723f48bd9 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.rst
@@ -497,8 +497,7 @@ long -- there might be other high-priority work to be done.
 In such cases, one uses call_rcu() rather than synchronize_rcu().
 The call_rcu() API is as follows::
 
-	void call_rcu(struct rcu_head * head,
-		      void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head));
+	void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func);
 
 This function invokes func(head) after a grace period has elapsed.
 This invocation might happen from either softirq or process context,
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 17c8e0c2deb4..7367ada13208 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1870,7 +1870,7 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
 
      These are for use with atomic RMW functions that do not imply memory
      barriers, but where the code needs a memory barrier. Examples for atomic
-     RMW functions that do not imply are memory barrier are e.g. add,
+     RMW functions that do not imply a memory barrier are e.g. add,
      subtract, (failed) conditional operations, _relaxed functions,
      but not atomic_read or atomic_set. A common example where a memory
      barrier may be required is when atomic ops are used for reference