Some more feedback on Chapter 9
Hi Paul,
There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback. I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
* At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form "Authors: ...".
But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit. I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.
* Position of Quick Quiz 9.44 looks a little premature. SRCU is mentioned just after the Quick Quiz.
* The 2nd sentence of Section 9.5.4.4 ends as "... in the companion article." This seems like a vestige of its origin in LWN. Should be fixed to match the context.
* In the introduction of Section 9.5.5, understanding of the whole Chapter 9 is listed in the prerequisite for the "toy" implementation. I suppose recursion is not intended here.
* Also in the introduction of Section 9.5.5, Section 9.5.5.2 is not mentioned.
* (Typo) In the 2nd paragraph of Section 9.7, there is a redundant "can" in "... so that updates can can operate locally, ...".
(Yes, I can submit the fix of this one as a patch. If you want me to do so, please let me know.)
* (Apart from Chapter 9) In Section 14.2.10.1, there are four instances of $\dagger$ for introducing notes. I'm wondering if they can be converted to footnotes. I'm not sure where they should be placed in the text, though.
I said earlier there were a few issues, but in the end there are a quite a few.
I don't mind if some (or all) of them be taken care of later after the upcoming release.
Thanks, Akira
Quoted 5 lines · Akira Yokosawa
Hi Paul,
There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback. I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
Quoted 8 lines
* At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form "Authors: ...".
But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit. I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.
Good point! I am guessing that these predated \OriginallyPublished{}, and that I didn't get around to fixing them properly. I have now fixed them.
Quoted 2 lines
* Position of Quick Quiz 9.44 looks a little premature. SRCU is mentioned just after the Quick Quiz.
Good catch, moved.
Quoted 3 lines
* The 2nd sentence of Section 9.5.4.4 ends as "... in the companion article." This seems like a vestige of its origin in LWN. Should be fixed to match the context.
Now it is "Section~\ref{sec:defer:RCU Usage}", good eyes!
Quoted 3 lines
* In the introduction of Section 9.5.5, understanding of the whole Chapter 9 is listed in the prerequisite for the "toy" implementation. I suppose recursion is not intended here.
You know, that is strangely appropriate, now that you mention it! ;-)
But how about the following?
Nevertheless, you will need a thorough understanding of Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well as the previous portions of Chapter 9 for even these toy RCU implementations to be easily understandable.
Quoted 1 line
* Also in the introduction of Section 9.5.5, Section 9.5.5.2 is not mentioned.
Fixed! Now "Section 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9".
Quoted 4 lines
* (Typo) In the 2nd paragraph of Section 9.7, there is a redundant "can" in "... so that updates can can operate locally, ...".
(Yes, I can submit the fix of this one as a patch. If you want me to do so, please let me know.)
I fixed it with your Reported-by.
And here is the Youtube video corresponding to that particular typo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Diu2N8TGKA
Quoted 3 lines
* (Apart from Chapter 9) In Section 14.2.10.1, there are four instances of $\dagger$ for introducing notes. I'm wondering if they can be converted to footnotes. I'm not sure where they should be placed in the text, though.
Odd. Those were there in the initial git commit.
I am removing the $\dagger$ commands and thus letting them be normal paragraphs.
Quoted 4 lines
I said earlier there were a few issues, but in the end there are a quite a few.
I don't mind if some (or all) of them be taken care of later after the upcoming release.
They were all reasonably easy, so might as well do them now. Famous last words. ;-)
I commited and pushed them all.
Thanx, Paul
Quoted 33 lines · Paul E. McKenney
Quoted 5 lines · Akira Yokosawa
Hi Paul,
There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback. I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
Quoted 8 lines
* At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form "Authors: ...".
But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit. I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.Good point! I am guessing that these predated \OriginallyPublished{}, and that I didn't get around to fixing them properly. I have now fixed them.
Quoted 2 lines
* Position of Quick Quiz 9.44 looks a little premature. SRCU is mentioned just after the Quick Quiz.
Good catch, moved.
Quoted 3 lines
* The 2nd sentence of Section 9.5.4.4 ends as "... in the companion article." This seems like a vestige of its origin in LWN. Should be fixed to match the context.
Now it is "Section~\ref{sec:defer:RCU Usage}", good eyes!
Quoted 3 lines
* In the introduction of Section 9.5.5, understanding of the whole Chapter 9 is listed in the prerequisite for the "toy" implementation. I suppose recursion is not intended here.
Quoted 7 lines
You know, that is strangely appropriate, now that you mention it! ;-)
But how about the following?
Nevertheless, you will need a thorough understanding of Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well as the previous portions of Chapter 9 for even these toy RCU implementations to be easily understandable.
It's perfect!
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
* Also in the introduction of Section 9.5.5, Section 9.5.5.2 is not mentioned.
Fixed! Now "Section 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9".
Wouldn't "Sections 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9" be better?
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 4 lines
* (Typo) In the 2nd paragraph of Section 9.7, there is a redundant "can" in "... so that updates can can operate locally, ...".
(Yes, I can submit the fix of this one as a patch. If you want me to do so, please let me know.)I fixed it with your Reported-by.
And here is the Youtube video corresponding to that particular typo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Diu2N8TGKA
:-)
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 4 lines
* (Apart from Chapter 9) In Section 14.2.10.1, there are four instances of $\dagger$ for introducing notes. I'm wondering if they can be converted to footnotes. I'm not sure where they should be placed in the text, though.
Odd. Those were there in the initial git commit.
I am removing the $\dagger$ commands and thus letting them be normal paragraphs.
Quoted 2 lines
I said earlier there were a few issues, but in the end there are a quite a few.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I don't mind if some (or all) of them be taken care of later after the upcoming release.
They were all reasonably easy, so might as well do them now. Famous last words. ;-)
I commited and pushed them all.
Quick work!
There is one thing I forgot to mention.
In Appendix C.7.3, ARM-v7's memory barrier instructions are explained. My understanding is that ARM-v8's memory barrier instructions are in line with the semantics of Linux kernel's memory barrier primitives. Wouldn't it be worth to mention somewhere, e.g., in a footnote?
Thanks, Akira
Quoted 4 lines
Thanx, Paul
Quoted 45 lines · Akira Yokosawa
Quoted 33 lines · Paul E. McKenney
Quoted 5 lines · Akira Yokosawa
Hi Paul,
There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback. I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
Quoted 8 lines
* At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form "Authors: ...".
But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit. I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.Good point! I am guessing that these predated \OriginallyPublished{}, and that I didn't get around to fixing them properly. I have now fixed them.
Quoted 2 lines
* Position of Quick Quiz 9.44 looks a little premature. SRCU is mentioned just after the Quick Quiz.
Good catch, moved.
Quoted 3 lines
* The 2nd sentence of Section 9.5.4.4 ends as "... in the companion article." This seems like a vestige of its origin in LWN. Should be fixed to match the context.
Now it is "Section~\ref{sec:defer:RCU Usage}", good eyes!
Quoted 3 lines
* In the introduction of Section 9.5.5, understanding of the whole Chapter 9 is listed in the prerequisite for the "toy" implementation. I suppose recursion is not intended here.
Quoted 7 lines
You know, that is strangely appropriate, now that you mention it! ;-)
But how about the following?
Nevertheless, you will need a thorough understanding of Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well as the previous portions of Chapter 9 for even these toy RCU implementations to be easily understandable.
It's perfect!
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
* Also in the introduction of Section 9.5.5, Section 9.5.5.2 is not mentioned.
Fixed! Now "Section 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9".
Wouldn't "Sections 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9" be better?
And fixed again. ;-)
Quoted 28 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 4 lines
* (Typo) In the 2nd paragraph of Section 9.7, there is a redundant "can" in "... so that updates can can operate locally, ...".
(Yes, I can submit the fix of this one as a patch. If you want me to do so, please let me know.)I fixed it with your Reported-by.
And here is the Youtube video corresponding to that particular typo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Diu2N8TGKA:-)
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 4 lines
* (Apart from Chapter 9) In Section 14.2.10.1, there are four instances of $\dagger$ for introducing notes. I'm wondering if they can be converted to footnotes. I'm not sure where they should be placed in the text, though.
Odd. Those were there in the initial git commit.
I am removing the $\dagger$ commands and thus letting them be normal paragraphs.
Quoted 4 lines
I said earlier there were a few issues, but in the end there are a quite a few.
I don't mind if some (or all) of them be taken care of later after the upcoming release.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
They were all reasonably easy, so might as well do them now. Famous last words. ;-)
I commited and pushed them all.
Quick work!
Easy changes. A hard change would be write a new chapter or some such. ;-)
Quoted 6 lines
There is one thing I forgot to mention.
In Appendix C.7.3, ARM-v7's memory barrier instructions are explained. My understanding is that ARM-v8's memory barrier instructions are in line with the semantics of Linux kernel's memory barrier primitives. Wouldn't it be worth to mention somewhere, e.g., in a footnote?
I do have "ARMv8 has recently added load-acquire and store-release instructions" in a footnote.
The memory-barrier discussion needs a full rewrite, but that must wait on some ongoing work to actually formally define what exactly the Linux-kernel memory model is. That rewrite will bring in ARMv8.
Thanx, Paul
Quoted 15 lines · Paul E. McKenney
Quoted 5 lines · Akira Yokosawa
Hi Paul,
There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback. I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
Quoted 8 lines
* At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form "Authors: ...".
But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit. I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.
Quoted 2 lines
Good point! I am guessing that these predated \OriginallyPublished{}, and that I didn't get around to fixing them properly. I have now fixed them.
And I'm wondering why I didn't realize the origin of Section 14.2 is Documentation/memory-barriers.txt...
But they look fairly different now, don't they?
Thanks, Akira
Quoted 16 lines · Akira Yokosawa
Quoted 15 lines · Paul E. McKenney
Quoted 13 lines · Akira Yokosawa
Hi Paul,
There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback. I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
* At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form "Authors: ...".
But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit. I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Good point! I am guessing that these predated \OriginallyPublished{}, and that I didn't get around to fixing them properly. I have now fixed them.
And I'm wondering why I didn't realize the origin of Section 14.2 is
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt...
But they look fairly different now, don't they?
They do! The book has not kept up with memory-barriers.txt.
Again, once we formally define the Linux-kernel memory model, I will rewrite the memory-barriers material, probably folding Section 14.2 and Appendix C together.
Thanx, Paul