rcu: Update documentation to cover call_srcu() and srcu_barrier().

The advent of call_srcu() and srcu_barrier() obsoleted some of the
documentation, so this commit brings that up to date.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt

@@ -162,9 +162,9 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 		when publicizing a pointer to a structure that can
 		be traversed by an RCU read-side critical section.
 
-5.	If call_rcu(), or a related primitive such as call_rcu_bh() or
+5.	If call_rcu(), or a related primitive such as call_rcu_bh(),
-	call_rcu_sched(), is used, the callback function must be
+	call_rcu_sched(), or call_srcu() is used, the callback function
-	written to be called from softirq context.  In particular,
+	must be written to be called from softirq context.  In particular,
 	it cannot block.
 
 6.	Since synchronize_rcu() can block, it cannot be called from
@@ -202,11 +202,12 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	updater uses call_rcu_sched() or synchronize_sched(), then
 	the corresponding readers must disable preemption, possibly
 	by calling rcu_read_lock_sched() and rcu_read_unlock_sched().
-	If the updater uses synchronize_srcu(), the the corresponding
+	If the updater uses synchronize_srcu() or call_srcu(),
-	readers must use srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock(),
+	the the corresponding readers must use srcu_read_lock() and
-	and with the same srcu_struct.	The rules for the expedited
+	srcu_read_unlock(), and with the same srcu_struct.  The rules for
-	primitives are the same as for their non-expedited counterparts.
+	the expedited primitives are the same as for their non-expedited
-	Mixing things up will result in confusion and broken kernels.
+	counterparts.  Mixing things up will result in confusion and
+	broken kernels.
 
 	One exception to this rule: rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
 	may be substituted for rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_unlock_bh()
@@ -333,14 +334,14 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	victim CPU from ever going offline.)
 
 14.	SRCU (srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock(), srcu_dereference(),
-	synchronize_srcu(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited()) may only
+	synchronize_srcu(), synchronize_srcu_expedited(), and call_srcu())
-	be invoked from process context.  Unlike other forms of RCU, it
+	may only be invoked from process context.  Unlike other forms of
-	-is- permissible to block in an SRCU read-side critical section
+	RCU, it -is- permissible to block in an SRCU read-side critical
-	(demarked by srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock()), hence the
+	section (demarked by srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock()),
-	"SRCU": "sleepable RCU".  Please note that if you don't need
+	hence the "SRCU": "sleepable RCU".  Please note that if you
-	to sleep in read-side critical sections, you should be using
+	don't need to sleep in read-side critical sections, you should be
-	RCU rather than SRCU, because RCU is almost always faster and
+	using RCU rather than SRCU, because RCU is almost always faster
-	easier to use than is SRCU.
+	and easier to use than is SRCU.
 
 	If you need to enter your read-side critical section in a
 	hardirq or exception handler, and then exit that same read-side
@@ -353,8 +354,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	cleanup_srcu_struct().	These are passed a "struct srcu_struct"
 	that defines the scope of a given SRCU domain.	Once initialized,
 	the srcu_struct is passed to srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock()
-	synchronize_srcu(), and synchronize_srcu_expedited().  A given
+	synchronize_srcu(), synchronize_srcu_expedited(), and call_srcu().
-	synchronize_srcu() waits only for SRCU read-side critical
+	A given synchronize_srcu() waits only for SRCU read-side critical
 	sections governed by srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock()
 	calls that have been passed the same srcu_struct.  This property
 	is what makes sleeping read-side critical sections tolerable --
@@ -374,7 +375,7 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
 	requiring SRCU's read-side deadlock immunity or low read-side
 	realtime latency.
 
-	Note that, rcu_assign_pointer() relates to SRCU just as they do
+	Note that, rcu_assign_pointer() relates to SRCU just as it does
 	to other forms of RCU.
 
 15.	The whole point of call_rcu(), synchronize_rcu(), and friends

Documentation/RCU/rcubarrier.txt

@@ -79,8 +79,6 @@ complete. Pseudo-code using rcu_barrier() is as follows:
    2. Execute rcu_barrier().
    3. Allow the module to be unloaded.
 
-Quick Quiz #1: Why is there no srcu_barrier()?
-
 The rcutorture module makes use of rcu_barrier in its exit function
 as follows:
 
@@ -162,7 +160,7 @@ 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 #2: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
+Quick Quiz #1: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
 	be required?
 
 Your module might have additional complications. For example, if your
@@ -242,7 +240,7 @@ reaches zero, as follows:
  4 complete(&rcu_barrier_completion);
  5 }
 
-Quick Quiz #3: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes
+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
@@ -259,12 +257,7 @@ so that your module may be safely unloaded.
 
 Answers to Quick Quizzes
 
-Quick Quiz #1: Why is there no srcu_barrier()?
+Quick Quiz #1: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
-
-Answer: Since there is no call_srcu(), there can be no outstanding SRCU
-	callbacks. Therefore, there is no need to wait for them.
-
-Quick Quiz #2: Is there any other situation where rcu_barrier() might
 	be required?
 
 Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
@@ -278,7 +271,7 @@ Answer: Interestingly enough, rcu_barrier() was not originally
 	implementing rcutorture, and found that rcu_barrier() solves
 	this problem as well.
 
-Quick Quiz #3: What happens if CPU 0's rcu_barrier_func() executes
+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

Documentation/RCU/torture.txt

@@ -174,11 +174,20 @@ torture_type	The type of RCU to test, with string values as follows:
 			and synchronize_rcu_bh_expedited().
 
 		"srcu": srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock() and
+			call_srcu().
+
+		"srcu_sync": srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock() and
 			synchronize_srcu().
 
 		"srcu_expedited": srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock() and
 			synchronize_srcu_expedited().
 
+		"srcu_raw": srcu_read_lock_raw(), srcu_read_unlock_raw(),
+			and call_srcu().
+
+		"srcu_raw_sync": srcu_read_lock_raw(), srcu_read_unlock_raw(),
+			and synchronize_srcu().
+
 		"sched": preempt_disable(), preempt_enable(), and
 			call_rcu_sched().
 

Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt

@@ -833,9 +833,9 @@ sched:	Critical sections	Grace period		Barrier
 
 SRCU:	Critical sections	Grace period		Barrier
 
-	srcu_read_lock		synchronize_srcu	N/A
+	srcu_read_lock		synchronize_srcu	srcu_barrier
-	srcu_read_unlock	synchronize_srcu_expedited
+	srcu_read_unlock	call_srcu
-	srcu_read_lock_raw
+	srcu_read_lock_raw	synchronize_srcu_expedited
 	srcu_read_unlock_raw
 	srcu_dereference