diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html index ece410f40436dc4f88fdf521bf84b7191b0ff798..a4d3838130e4ef6c30ac7ece5dc56e452d5274cb 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html @@ -2493,6 +2493,28 @@ or some future “lazy” variant of call_rcu() that might one day be created for energy-efficiency purposes. +
+That said, there are limits. +RCU requires that the rcu_head structure be aligned to a +two-byte boundary, and passing a misaligned rcu_head +structure to one of the call_rcu() family of functions +will result in a splat. +It is therefore necessary to exercise caution when packing +structures containing fields of type rcu_head. +Why not a four-byte or even eight-byte alignment requirement? +Because the m68k architecture provides only two-byte alignment, +and thus acts as alignment's least common denominator. + +
+The reason for reserving the bottom bit of pointers to +rcu_head structures is to leave the door open to +“lazy” callbacks whose invocations can safely be deferred. +Deferring invocation could potentially have energy-efficiency +benefits, but only if the rate of non-lazy callbacks decreases +significantly for some important workload. +In the meantime, reserving the bottom bit keeps this option open +in case it one day becomes useful. +