doc: Convert to rcubarrier.txt to ReST

Convert rcubarrier.txt to rcubarrier.rst and add it to index.rst.

Format file according to reST
- Add headings and sub-headings
- Add code segments
- Add cross-references to quizes and answers

Signed-off-by: Amol Grover <frextrite@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Phong Tran <tranmanphong@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

Documentation/RCU/index.rst

@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ RCU concepts
    :maxdepth: 3
 
    arrayRCU
+   rcubarrier
    rcu_dereference
    whatisRCU
    rcu

Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.rst

@@ -1,4 +1,7 @@
+.. _rcu_barrier:
+
 RCU and Unloadable Modules
+==========================
 
 [Originally published in LWN Jan. 14, 2007: http://lwn.net/Articles/217484/]
 
@@ -21,7 +24,7 @@ given that readers might well leave absolutely no trace of their
 presence? There is a synchronize_rcu() primitive that blocks until all
 pre-existing readers have completed. An updater wishing to delete an
 element p from a linked list might do the following, while holding an
-appropriate lock, of course:
+appropriate lock, of course::
 
 	list_del_rcu(p);
 	synchronize_rcu();
@@ -32,13 +35,13 @@ primitive must be used instead. This primitive takes a pointer to an
 rcu_head struct placed within the RCU-protected data structure and
 another pointer to a function that may be invoked later to free that
 structure. Code to delete an element p from the linked list from IRQ
-context might then be as follows:
+context might then be as follows::
 
 	list_del_rcu(p);
 	call_rcu(&p->rcu, p_callback);
 
 Since call_rcu() never blocks, this code can safely be used from within
-IRQ context. The function p_callback() might be defined as follows:
+IRQ context. The function p_callback() might be defined as follows::
 
 	static void p_callback(struct rcu_head *rp)
 	{
@@ -49,6 +52,7 @@ IRQ context. The function p_callback() might be defined as follows:
 
 
 Unloading Modules That Use call_rcu()
+-------------------------------------
 
 But what if p_callback is defined in an unloadable module?
 
@@ -69,10 +73,11 @@ in realtime kernels in order to avoid excessive scheduling latencies.
 
 
 rcu_barrier()
+-------------
 
 We instead need the rcu_barrier() primitive.  Rather than waiting for
 a grace period to elapse, rcu_barrier() waits for all outstanding RCU
-callbacks to complete.  Please note that rcu_barrier() does -not- imply
+callbacks to complete.  Please note that rcu_barrier() does **not** imply
 synchronize_rcu(), in particular, if there are no RCU callbacks queued
 anywhere, rcu_barrier() is within its rights to return immediately,
 without waiting for a grace period to elapse.
@@ -88,15 +93,15 @@ must match the flavor of rcu_barrier() with that of call_rcu().  If your
 module uses multiple flavors of call_rcu(), then it must also use multiple
 flavors of rcu_barrier() when unloading that module.  For example, if
 it uses call_rcu(), call_srcu() on srcu_struct_1, and call_srcu() on
-srcu_struct_2(), then the following three lines of code will be required
-when unloading:
+srcu_struct_2, then the following three lines of code will be required
+when unloading::
 
  1 rcu_barrier();
  2 srcu_barrier(&srcu_struct_1);
  3 srcu_barrier(&srcu_struct_2);
 
 The rcutorture module makes use of rcu_barrier() in its exit function
-as follows:
+as follows::
 
  1  static void
  2  rcu_torture_cleanup(void)
@@ -176,9 +181,14 @@ for any pre-existing callbacks to complete.
 Then lines 55-62 print status and do operation-specific cleanup, and
 then return, permitting the module-unload operation to be completed.
 
-Quick Quiz #1: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
+.. _rcubarrier_quiz_1:
+
+Quick Quiz #1:
+	Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
 	be required?
 
+:ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz #1 <answer_rcubarrier_quiz_1>`
+
 Your module might have additional complications. For example, if your
 module invokes call_rcu() from timers, you will need to first cancel all
 the timers, and only then invoke rcu_barrier() to wait for any remaining
@@ -188,11 +198,12 @@ Of course, if you module uses call_rcu(), you will need to invoke
 rcu_barrier() before unloading.  Similarly, if your module uses
 call_srcu(), you will need to invoke srcu_barrier() before unloading,
 and on the same srcu_struct structure.  If your module uses call_rcu()
--and- call_srcu(), then you will need to invoke rcu_barrier() -and-
+**and** call_srcu(), then you will need to invoke rcu_barrier() **and**
 srcu_barrier().
 
 
 Implementing rcu_barrier()
+--------------------------
 
 Dipankar Sarma's implementation of rcu_barrier() makes use of the fact
 that RCU callbacks are never reordered once queued on one of the per-CPU
@@ -200,7 +211,7 @@ queues. His implementation queues an RCU callback on each of the per-CPU
 callback queues, and then waits until they have all started executing, at
 which point, all earlier RCU callbacks are guaranteed to have completed.
 
-The original code for rcu_barrier() was as follows:
+The original code for rcu_barrier() was as follows::
 
  1  void rcu_barrier(void)
  2  {
@@ -226,7 +237,7 @@ This code was rewritten in 2008 and several times thereafter, but this
 still gives the general idea.
 
 The rcu_barrier_func() runs on each CPU, where it invokes call_rcu()
-to post an RCU callback, as follows:
+to post an RCU callback, as follows::
 
  1  static void rcu_barrier_func(void *notused)
  2  {
@@ -248,7 +259,7 @@ the current CPU's queue.
 
 The rcu_barrier_callback() function simply atomically decrements the
 rcu_barrier_cpu_count variable and finalizes the completion when it
-reaches zero, as follows:
+reaches zero, as follows::
 
  1 static void rcu_barrier_callback(struct rcu_head *notused)
  2 {
@@ -256,12 +267,17 @@ reaches zero, as follows:
  4     complete(&rcu_barrier_completion);
  5 }
 
-Quick Quiz #2: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes
+.. _rcubarrier_quiz_2:
+
+Quick Quiz #2:
+	What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes
 	immediately (thus incrementing rcu_barrier_cpu_count to the
 	value one), but the other CPU's rcu_barrier_func() invocations
 	are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in
 	rcu_barrier() returning prematurely?
 
+:ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz #2 <answer_rcubarrier_quiz_2>`
+
 The current rcu_barrier() implementation is more complex, due to the need
 to avoid disturbing idle CPUs (especially on battery-powered systems)
 and the need to minimally disturb non-idle CPUs in real-time systems.
@@ -269,6 +285,7 @@ However, the code above illustrates the concepts.
 
 
 rcu_barrier() Summary
+---------------------
 
 The rcu_barrier() primitive has seen relatively little use, since most
 code using RCU is in the core kernel rather than in modules. However, if
@@ -277,8 +294,12 @@ so that your module may be safely unloaded.
 
 
 Answers to Quick Quizzes
+------------------------
 
-Quick Quiz #1: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
+.. _answer_rcubarrier_quiz_1:
+
+Quick Quiz #1:
+	Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
 	be required?
 
 Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
@@ -292,7 +313,12 @@ Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
 	implementing rcutorture, and found that rcu_barrier() solves
 	this problem as well.
 
-Quick Quiz #2: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes
+:ref:`Back to Quick Quiz #1 <rcubarrier_quiz_1>`
+
+.. _answer_rcubarrier_quiz_2:
+
+Quick Quiz #2:
+	What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes
 	immediately (thus incrementing rcu_barrier_cpu_count to the
 	value one), but the other CPU's rcu_barrier_func() invocations
 	are delayed for a full grace period? Couldn't this result in
@@ -323,3 +349,5 @@ Answer: This cannot happen. The reason is that on_each_cpu() has its last
 	is to add an rcu_read_lock() before line 8 of rcu_barrier()
 	and an rcu_read_unlock() after line 8 of this same function. If
 	you can think of a better change, please let me know!
+
+:ref:`Back to Quick Quiz #2 <rcubarrier_quiz_2>`