diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt b/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt
index 9c6d450..fcbcbc3 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/RTFP.txt
@@ -2,7 +2,8 @@
 
 
 This document describes RCU-related publications, and is followed by
-the corresponding bibtex entries.
+the corresponding bibtex entries.  A number of the publications may
+be found at http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/.
 
 The first thing resembling RCU was published in 1980, when Kung and Lehman
 [Kung80] recommended use of a garbage collector to defer destruction
@@ -113,6 +114,10 @@
 and a paper describing SELinux performance with RCU [JamesMorris04b].
 
 
+2005 has seen further adaptation of RCU to realtime use, permitting
+preemption of RCU realtime critical sections [PaulMcKenney05a,
+PaulMcKenney05b].
+
 Bibtex Entries
 
 @article{Kung80
@@ -410,3 +415,32 @@
 \url{http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_morris/2153.html}
 [Viewed December 10, 2004]"
 }
+
+@unpublished{PaulMcKenney05a
+,Author="Paul E. McKenney"
+,Title="{[RFC]} {RCU} and {CONFIG\_PREEMPT\_RT} progress"
+,month="May"
+,year="2005"
+,note="Available:
+\url{http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/9/185}
+[Viewed May 13, 2005]"
+,annotation="
+	First publication of working lock-based deferred free patches
+	for the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT environment.
+"
+}
+
+@conference{PaulMcKenney05b
+,Author="Paul E. McKenney and Dipankar Sarma"
+,Title="Towards Hard Realtime Response from the Linux Kernel on SMP Hardware"
+,Booktitle="linux.conf.au 2005"
+,month="April"
+,year="2005"
+,address="Canberra, Australia"
+,note="Available:
+\url{http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/realtimeRCU.2005.04.23a.pdf}
+[Viewed May 13, 2005]"
+,annotation="
+	Realtime turns into making RCU yet more realtime friendly.
+"
+}
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/UP.txt b/Documentation/RCU/UP.txt
index 3bfb84b..aab4a9e 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/UP.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/UP.txt
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 wait for anything else to get done, since there are no other CPUs for
 anything else to be happening on.  Although this approach will -sort- -of-
 work a surprising amount of the time, it is a very bad idea in general.
-This document presents two examples that demonstrate exactly how bad an
+This document presents three examples that demonstrate exactly how bad an
 idea this is.
 
 
@@ -26,6 +26,9 @@
 element B.  This situation can greatly decrease the life expectancy of
 your kernel.
 
+This same problem can occur if call_rcu() is invoked from a hardware
+interrupt handler.
+
 
 Example 2: Function-Call Fatality
 
@@ -44,8 +47,37 @@
 underlying RCU, namely that call_rcu() defers invoking its arguments until
 all RCU read-side critical sections currently executing have completed.
 
-Quick Quiz: why is it -not- legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in
-this case?
+Quick Quiz #1: why is it -not- legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in
+	this case?
+
+
+Example 3: Death by Deadlock
+
+Suppose that call_rcu() is invoked while holding a lock, and that the
+callback function must acquire this same lock.  In this case, if
+call_rcu() were to directly invoke the callback, the result would
+be self-deadlock.
+
+In some cases, it would possible to restructure to code so that
+the call_rcu() is delayed until after the lock is released.  However,
+there are cases where this can be quite ugly:
+
+1.	If a number of items need to be passed to call_rcu() within
+	the same critical section, then the code would need to create
+	a list of them, then traverse the list once the lock was
+	released.
+
+2.	In some cases, the lock will be held across some kernel API,
+	so that delaying the call_rcu() until the lock is released
+	requires that the data item be passed up via a common API.
+	It is far better to guarantee that callbacks are invoked
+	with no locks held than to have to modify such APIs to allow
+	arbitrary data items to be passed back up through them.
+
+If call_rcu() directly invokes the callback, painful locking restrictions
+or API changes would be required.
+
+Quick Quiz #2: What locking restriction must RCU callbacks respect?
 
 
 Summary
@@ -53,12 +85,35 @@
 Permitting call_rcu() to immediately invoke its arguments or permitting
 synchronize_rcu() to immediately return breaks RCU, even on a UP system.
 So do not do it!  Even on a UP system, the RCU infrastructure -must-
-respect grace periods.
+respect grace periods, and -must- invoke callbacks from a known environment
+in which no locks are held.
 
 
-Answer to Quick Quiz
+Answer to Quick Quiz #1:
+	Why is it -not- legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in this case?
 
-The calling function is scanning an RCU-protected linked list, and
-is therefore within an RCU read-side critical section.  Therefore,
-the called function has been invoked within an RCU read-side critical
-section, and is not permitted to block.
+	Because the calling function is scanning an RCU-protected linked
+	list, and is therefore within an RCU read-side critical section.
+	Therefore, the called function has been invoked within an RCU
+	read-side critical section, and is not permitted to block.
+
+Answer to Quick Quiz #2:
+	What locking restriction must RCU callbacks respect?
+
+	Any lock that is acquired within an RCU callback must be
+	acquired elsewhere using an _irq variant of the spinlock
+	primitive.  For example, if "mylock" is acquired by an
+	RCU callback, then a process-context acquisition of this
+	lock must use something like spin_lock_irqsave() to
+	acquire the lock.
+
+	If the process-context code were to simply use spin_lock(),
+	then, since RCU callbacks can be invoked from softirq context,
+	the callback might be called from a softirq that interrupted
+	the process-context critical section.  This would result in
+	self-deadlock.
+
+	This restriction might seem gratuitous, since very few RCU
+	callbacks acquire locks directly.  However, a great many RCU
+	callbacks do acquire locks -indirectly-, for example, via
+	the kfree() primitive.
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
index 8f3fb77..e118a7c 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
@@ -43,6 +43,10 @@
 	rcu_read_lock_bh()) in the read-side critical sections,
 	and are also an excellent aid to readability.
 
+	As a rough rule of thumb, any dereference of an RCU-protected
+	pointer must be covered by rcu_read_lock() or rcu_read_lock_bh()
+	or by the appropriate update-side lock.
+
 3.	Does the update code tolerate concurrent accesses?
 
 	The whole point of RCU is to permit readers to run without
@@ -90,7 +94,11 @@
 
 		The rcu_dereference() primitive is used by the various
 		"_rcu()" list-traversal primitives, such as the
-		list_for_each_entry_rcu().
+		list_for_each_entry_rcu().  Note that it is perfectly
+		legal (if redundant) for update-side code to use
+		rcu_dereference() and the "_rcu()" list-traversal
+		primitives.  This is particularly useful in code
+		that is common to readers and updaters.
 
 	b.	If the list macros are being used, the list_add_tail_rcu()
 		and list_add_rcu() primitives must be used in order
@@ -150,16 +158,9 @@
 
 	Use of the _rcu() list-traversal primitives outside of an
 	RCU read-side critical section causes no harm other than
-	a slight performance degradation on Alpha CPUs and some
-	confusion on the part of people trying to read the code.
-
-	Another way of thinking of this is "If you are holding the
-	lock that prevents the data structure from changing, why do
-	you also need RCU-based protection?"  That said, there may
-	well be situations where use of the _rcu() list-traversal
-	primitives while the update-side lock is held results in
-	simpler and more maintainable code.  The jury is still out
-	on this question.
+	a slight performance degradation on Alpha CPUs.  It can
+	also be quite helpful in reducing code bloat when common
+	code is shared between readers and updaters.
 
 10.	Conversely, if you are in an RCU read-side critical section,
 	you -must- use the "_rcu()" variants of the list macros.
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/rcu.txt b/Documentation/RCU/rcu.txt
index eb44400..6fa0922 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/rcu.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/rcu.txt
@@ -64,6 +64,54 @@
 	Of these, one was allowed to lapse by the assignee, and the
 	others have been contributed to the Linux kernel under GPL.
 
+o	I hear that RCU needs work in order to support realtime kernels?
+
+	Yes, work in progress.
+
 o	Where can I find more information on RCU?
 
 	See the RTFP.txt file in this directory.
+	Or point your browser at http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/.
+
+o	What are all these files in this directory?
+
+
+	NMI-RCU.txt
+
+		Describes how to use RCU to implement dynamic
+		NMI handlers, which can be revectored on the fly,
+		without rebooting.
+
+	RTFP.txt
+
+		List of RCU-related publications and web sites.
+
+	UP.txt
+
+		Discussion of RCU usage in UP kernels.
+
+	arrayRCU.txt
+
+		Describes how to use RCU to protect arrays, with
+		resizeable arrays whose elements reference other
+		data structures being of the most interest.
+
+	checklist.txt
+
+		Lists things to check for when inspecting code that
+		uses RCU.
+
+	listRCU.txt
+
+		Describes how to use RCU to protect linked lists.
+		This is the simplest and most common use of RCU
+		in the Linux kernel.
+
+	rcu.txt
+
+		You are reading it!
+
+	whatisRCU.txt
+
+		Overview of how the RCU implementation works.  Along
+		the way, presents a conceptual view of RCU.
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..354d89c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,902 @@
+What is RCU?
+
+RCU is a synchronization mechanism that was added to the Linux kernel
+during the 2.5 development effort that is optimized for read-mostly
+situations.  Although RCU is actually quite simple once you understand it,
+getting there can sometimes be a challenge.  Part of the problem is that
+most of the past descriptions of RCU have been written with the mistaken
+assumption that there is "one true way" to describe RCU.  Instead,
+the experience has been that different people must take different paths
+to arrive at an understanding of RCU.  This document provides several
+different paths, as follows:
+
+1.	RCU OVERVIEW
+2.	WHAT IS RCU'S CORE API?
+3.	WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLE USES OF CORE RCU API?
+4.	WHAT IF MY UPDATING THREAD CANNOT BLOCK?
+5.	WHAT ARE SOME SIMPLE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF RCU?
+6.	ANALOGY WITH READER-WRITER LOCKING
+7.	FULL LIST OF RCU APIs
+8.	ANSWERS TO QUICK QUIZZES
+
+People who prefer starting with a conceptual overview should focus on
+Section 1, though most readers will profit by reading this section at
+some point.  People who prefer to start with an API that they can then
+experiment with should focus on Section 2.  People who prefer to start
+with example uses should focus on Sections 3 and 4.  People who need to
+understand the RCU implementation should focus on Section 5, then dive
+into the kernel source code.  People who reason best by analogy should
+focus on Section 6.  Section 7 serves as an index to the docbook API
+documentation, and Section 8 is the traditional answer key.
+
+So, start with the section that makes the most sense to you and your
+preferred method of learning.  If you need to know everything about
+everything, feel free to read the whole thing -- but if you are really
+that type of person, you have perused the source code and will therefore
+never need this document anyway.  ;-)
+
+
+1.  RCU OVERVIEW
+
+The basic idea behind RCU is to split updates into "removal" and
+"reclamation" phases.  The removal phase removes references to data items
+within a data structure (possibly by replacing them with references to
+new versions of these data items), and can run concurrently with readers.
+The reason that it is safe to run the removal phase concurrently with
+readers is the semantics of modern CPUs guarantee that readers will see
+either the old or the new version of the data structure rather than a
+partially updated reference.  The reclamation phase does the work of reclaiming
+(e.g., freeing) the data items removed from the data structure during the
+removal phase.  Because reclaiming data items can disrupt any readers
+concurrently referencing those data items, the reclamation phase must
+not start until readers no longer hold references to those data items.
+
+Splitting the update into removal and reclamation phases permits the
+updater to perform the removal phase immediately, and to defer the
+reclamation phase until all readers active during the removal phase have
+completed, either by blocking until they finish or by registering a
+callback that is invoked after they finish.  Only readers that are active
+during the removal phase need be considered, because any reader starting
+after the removal phase will be unable to gain a reference to the removed
+data items, and therefore cannot be disrupted by the reclamation phase.
+
+So the typical RCU update sequence goes something like the following:
+
+a.	Remove pointers to a data structure, so that subsequent
+	readers cannot gain a reference to it.
+
+b.	Wait for all previous readers to complete their RCU read-side
+	critical sections.
+
+c.	At this point, there cannot be any readers who hold references
+	to the data structure, so it now may safely be reclaimed
+	(e.g., kfree()d).
+
+Step (b) above is the key idea underlying RCU's deferred destruction.
+The ability to wait until all readers are done allows RCU readers to
+use much lighter-weight synchronization, in some cases, absolutely no
+synchronization at all.  In contrast, in more conventional lock-based
+schemes, readers must use heavy-weight synchronization in order to
+prevent an updater from deleting the data structure out from under them.
+This is because lock-based updaters typically update data items in place,
+and must therefore exclude readers.  In contrast, RCU-based updaters
+typically take advantage of the fact that writes to single aligned
+pointers are atomic on modern CPUs, allowing atomic insertion, removal,
+and replacement of data items in a linked structure without disrupting
+readers.  Concurrent RCU readers can then continue accessing the old
+versions, and can dispense with the atomic operations, memory barriers,
+and communications cache misses that are so expensive on present-day
+SMP computer systems, even in absence of lock contention.
+
+In the three-step procedure shown above, the updater is performing both
+the removal and the reclamation step, but it is often helpful for an
+entirely different thread to do the reclamation, as is in fact the case
+in the Linux kernel's directory-entry cache (dcache).  Even if the same
+thread performs both the update step (step (a) above) and the reclamation
+step (step (c) above), it is often helpful to think of them separately.
+For example, RCU readers and updaters need not communicate at all,
+but RCU provides implicit low-overhead communication between readers
+and reclaimers, namely, in step (b) above.
+
+So how the heck can a reclaimer tell when a reader is done, given
+that readers are not doing any sort of synchronization operations???
+Read on to learn about how RCU's API makes this easy.
+
+
+2.  WHAT IS RCU'S CORE API?
+
+The core RCU API is quite small:
+
+a.	rcu_read_lock()
+b.	rcu_read_unlock()
+c.	synchronize_rcu() / call_rcu()
+d.	rcu_assign_pointer()
+e.	rcu_dereference()
+
+There are many other members of the RCU API, but the rest can be
+expressed in terms of these five, though most implementations instead
+express synchronize_rcu() in terms of the call_rcu() callback API.
+
+The five core RCU APIs are described below, the other 18 will be enumerated
+later.  See the kernel docbook documentation for more info, or look directly
+at the function header comments.
+
+rcu_read_lock()
+
+	void rcu_read_lock(void);
+
+	Used by a reader to inform the reclaimer that the reader is
+	entering an RCU read-side critical section.  It is illegal
+	to block while in an RCU read-side critical section, though
+	kernels built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU can preempt RCU read-side
+	critical sections.  Any RCU-protected data structure accessed
+	during an RCU read-side critical section is guaranteed to remain
+	unreclaimed for the full duration of that critical section.
+	Reference counts may be used in conjunction with RCU to maintain
+	longer-term references to data structures.
+
+rcu_read_unlock()
+
+	void rcu_read_unlock(void);
+
+	Used by a reader to inform the reclaimer that the reader is
+	exiting an RCU read-side critical section.  Note that RCU
+	read-side critical sections may be nested and/or overlapping.
+
+synchronize_rcu()
+
+	void synchronize_rcu(void);
+
+	Marks the end of updater code and the beginning of reclaimer
+	code.  It does this by blocking until all pre-existing RCU
+	read-side critical sections on all CPUs have completed.
+	Note that synchronize_rcu() will -not- necessarily wait for
+	any subsequent RCU read-side critical sections to complete.
+	For example, consider the following sequence of events:
+
+	         CPU 0                  CPU 1                 CPU 2
+	     ----------------- ------------------------- ---------------
+	 1.  rcu_read_lock()
+	 2.                    enters synchronize_rcu()
+	 3.                                               rcu_read_lock()
+	 4.  rcu_read_unlock()
+	 5.                     exits synchronize_rcu()
+	 6.                                              rcu_read_unlock()
+
+	To reiterate, synchronize_rcu() waits only for ongoing RCU
+	read-side critical sections to complete, not necessarily for
+	any that begin after synchronize_rcu() is invoked.
+
+	Of course, synchronize_rcu() does not necessarily return
+	-immediately- after the last pre-existing RCU read-side critical
+	section completes.  For one thing, there might well be scheduling
+	delays.  For another thing, many RCU implementations process
+	requests in batches in order to improve efficiencies, which can
+	further delay synchronize_rcu().
+
+	Since synchronize_rcu() is the API that must figure out when
+	readers are done, its implementation is key to RCU.  For RCU
+	to be useful in all but the most read-intensive situations,
+	synchronize_rcu()'s overhead must also be quite small.
+
+	The call_rcu() API is a callback form of synchronize_rcu(),
+	and is described in more detail in a later section.  Instead of
+	blocking, it registers a function and argument which are invoked
+	after all ongoing RCU read-side critical sections have completed.
+	This callback variant is particularly useful in situations where
+	it is illegal to block.
+
+rcu_assign_pointer()
+
+	typeof(p) rcu_assign_pointer(p, typeof(p) v);
+
+	Yes, rcu_assign_pointer() -is- implemented as a macro, though it
+	would be cool to be able to declare a function in this manner.
+	(Compiler experts will no doubt disagree.)
+
+	The updater uses this function to assign a new value to an
+	RCU-protected pointer, in order to safely communicate the change
+	in value from the updater to the reader.  This function returns
+	the new value, and also executes any memory-barrier instructions
+	required for a given CPU architecture.
+
+	Perhaps more important, it serves to document which pointers
+	are protected by RCU.  That said, rcu_assign_pointer() is most
+	frequently used indirectly, via the _rcu list-manipulation
+	primitives such as list_add_rcu().
+
+rcu_dereference()
+
+	typeof(p) rcu_dereference(p);
+
+	Like rcu_assign_pointer(), rcu_dereference() must be implemented
+	as a macro.
+
+	The reader uses rcu_dereference() to fetch an RCU-protected
+	pointer, which returns a value that may then be safely
+	dereferenced.  Note that rcu_deference() does not actually
+	dereference the pointer, instead, it protects the pointer for
+	later dereferencing.  It also executes any needed memory-barrier
+	instructions for a given CPU architecture.  Currently, only Alpha
+	needs memory barriers within rcu_dereference() -- on other CPUs,
+	it compiles to nothing, not even a compiler directive.
+
+	Common coding practice uses rcu_dereference() to copy an
+	RCU-protected pointer to a local variable, then dereferences
+	this local variable, for example as follows:
+
+		p = rcu_dereference(head.next);
+		return p->data;
+
+	However, in this case, one could just as easily combine these
+	into one statement:
+
+		return rcu_dereference(head.next)->data;
+
+	If you are going to be fetching multiple fields from the
+	RCU-protected structure, using the local variable is of
+	course preferred.  Repeated rcu_dereference() calls look
+	ugly and incur unnecessary overhead on Alpha CPUs.
+
+	Note that the value returned by rcu_dereference() is valid
+	only within the enclosing RCU read-side critical section.
+	For example, the following is -not- legal:
+
+		rcu_read_lock();
+		p = rcu_dereference(head.next);
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+		x = p->address;
+		rcu_read_lock();
+		y = p->data;
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+
+	Holding a reference from one RCU read-side critical section
+	to another is just as illegal as holding a reference from
+	one lock-based critical section to another!  Similarly,
+	using a reference outside of the critical section in which
+	it was acquired is just as illegal as doing so with normal
+	locking.
+
+	As with rcu_assign_pointer(), an important function of
+	rcu_dereference() is to document which pointers are protected
+	by RCU.  And, again like rcu_assign_pointer(), rcu_dereference()
+	is typically used indirectly, via the _rcu list-manipulation
+	primitives, such as list_for_each_entry_rcu().
+
+The following diagram shows how each API communicates among the
+reader, updater, and reclaimer.
+
+
+	    rcu_assign_pointer()
+	    			    +--------+
+	    +---------------------->| reader |---------+
+	    |                       +--------+         |
+	    |                           |              |
+	    |                           |              | Protect:
+	    |                           |              | rcu_read_lock()
+	    |                           |              | rcu_read_unlock()
+	    |        rcu_dereference()  |              |
+       +---------+                      |              |
+       | updater |<---------------------+              |
+       +---------+                                     V
+	    |                                    +-----------+
+	    +----------------------------------->| reclaimer |
+	    				         +-----------+
+	      Defer:
+	      synchronize_rcu() & call_rcu()
+
+
+The RCU infrastructure observes the time sequence of rcu_read_lock(),
+rcu_read_unlock(), synchronize_rcu(), and call_rcu() invocations in
+order to determine when (1) synchronize_rcu() invocations may return
+to their callers and (2) call_rcu() callbacks may be invoked.  Efficient
+implementations of the RCU infrastructure make heavy use of batching in
+order to amortize their overhead over many uses of the corresponding APIs.
+
+There are no fewer than three RCU mechanisms in the Linux kernel; the
+diagram above shows the first one, which is by far the most commonly used.
+The rcu_dereference() and rcu_assign_pointer() primitives are used for
+all three mechanisms, but different defer and protect primitives are
+used as follows:
+
+	Defer			Protect
+
+a.	synchronize_rcu()	rcu_read_lock() / rcu_read_unlock()
+	call_rcu()
+
+b.	call_rcu_bh()		rcu_read_lock_bh() / rcu_read_unlock_bh()
+
+c.	synchronize_sched()	preempt_disable() / preempt_enable()
+				local_irq_save() / local_irq_restore()
+				hardirq enter / hardirq exit
+				NMI enter / NMI exit
+
+These three mechanisms are used as follows:
+
+a.	RCU applied to normal data structures.
+
+b.	RCU applied to networking data structures that may be subjected
+	to remote denial-of-service attacks.
+
+c.	RCU applied to scheduler and interrupt/NMI-handler tasks.
+
+Again, most uses will be of (a).  The (b) and (c) cases are important
+for specialized uses, but are relatively uncommon.
+
+
+3.  WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLE USES OF CORE RCU API?
+
+This section shows a simple use of the core RCU API to protect a
+global pointer to a dynamically allocated structure.  More typical
+uses of RCU may be found in listRCU.txt, arrayRCU.txt, and NMI-RCU.txt.
+
+	struct foo {
+		int a;
+		char b;
+		long c;
+	};
+	DEFINE_SPINLOCK(foo_mutex);
+
+	struct foo *gbl_foo;
+
+	/*
+	 * Create a new struct foo that is the same as the one currently
+	 * pointed to by gbl_foo, except that field "a" is replaced
+	 * with "new_a".  Points gbl_foo to the new structure, and
+	 * frees up the old structure after a grace period.
+	 *
+	 * Uses rcu_assign_pointer() to ensure that concurrent readers
+	 * see the initialized version of the new structure.
+	 *
+	 * Uses synchronize_rcu() to ensure that any readers that might
+	 * have references to the old structure complete before freeing
+	 * the old structure.
+	 */
+	void foo_update_a(int new_a)
+	{
+		struct foo *new_fp;
+		struct foo *old_fp;
+
+		new_fp = kmalloc(sizeof(*fp), GFP_KERNEL);
+		spin_lock(&foo_mutex);
+		old_fp = gbl_foo;
+		*new_fp = *old_fp;
+		new_fp->a = new_a;
+		rcu_assign_pointer(gbl_foo, new_fp);
+		spin_unlock(&foo_mutex);
+		synchronize_rcu();
+		kfree(old_fp);
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * Return the value of field "a" of the current gbl_foo
+	 * structure.  Use rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
+	 * to ensure that the structure does not get deleted out
+	 * from under us, and use rcu_dereference() to ensure that
+	 * we see the initialized version of the structure (important
+	 * for DEC Alpha and for people reading the code).
+	 */
+	int foo_get_a(void)
+	{
+		int retval;
+
+		rcu_read_lock();
+		retval = rcu_dereference(gbl_foo)->a;
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+		return retval;
+	}
+
+So, to sum up:
+
+o	Use rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() to guard RCU
+	read-side critical sections.
+
+o	Within an RCU read-side critical section, use rcu_dereference()
+	to dereference RCU-protected pointers.
+
+o	Use some solid scheme (such as locks or semaphores) to
+	keep concurrent updates from interfering with each other.
+
+o	Use rcu_assign_pointer() to update an RCU-protected pointer.
+	This primitive protects concurrent readers from the updater,
+	-not- concurrent updates from each other!  You therefore still
+	need to use locking (or something similar) to keep concurrent
+	rcu_assign_pointer() primitives from interfering with each other.
+
+o	Use synchronize_rcu() -after- removing a data element from an
+	RCU-protected data structure, but -before- reclaiming/freeing
+	the data element, in order to wait for the completion of all
+	RCU read-side critical sections that might be referencing that
+	data item.
+
+See checklist.txt for additional rules to follow when using RCU.
+
+
+4.  WHAT IF MY UPDATING THREAD CANNOT BLOCK?
+
+In the example above, foo_update_a() blocks until a grace period elapses.
+This is quite simple, but in some cases one cannot afford to wait so
+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));
+
+This function invokes func(head) after a grace period has elapsed.
+This invocation might happen from either softirq or process context,
+so the function is not permitted to block.  The foo struct needs to
+have an rcu_head structure added, perhaps as follows:
+
+	struct foo {
+		int a;
+		char b;
+		long c;
+		struct rcu_head rcu;
+	};
+
+The foo_update_a() function might then be written as follows:
+
+	/*
+	 * Create a new struct foo that is the same as the one currently
+	 * pointed to by gbl_foo, except that field "a" is replaced
+	 * with "new_a".  Points gbl_foo to the new structure, and
+	 * frees up the old structure after a grace period.
+	 *
+	 * Uses rcu_assign_pointer() to ensure that concurrent readers
+	 * see the initialized version of the new structure.
+	 *
+	 * Uses call_rcu() to ensure that any readers that might have
+	 * references to the old structure complete before freeing the
+	 * old structure.
+	 */
+	void foo_update_a(int new_a)
+	{
+		struct foo *new_fp;
+		struct foo *old_fp;
+
+		new_fp = kmalloc(sizeof(*fp), GFP_KERNEL);
+		spin_lock(&foo_mutex);
+		old_fp = gbl_foo;
+		*new_fp = *old_fp;
+		new_fp->a = new_a;
+		rcu_assign_pointer(gbl_foo, new_fp);
+		spin_unlock(&foo_mutex);
+		call_rcu(&old_fp->rcu, foo_reclaim);
+	}
+
+The foo_reclaim() function might appear as follows:
+
+	void foo_reclaim(struct rcu_head *rp)
+	{
+		struct foo *fp = container_of(rp, struct foo, rcu);
+
+		kfree(fp);
+	}
+
+The container_of() primitive is a macro that, given a pointer into a
+struct, the type of the struct, and the pointed-to field within the
+struct, returns a pointer to the beginning of the struct.
+
+The use of call_rcu() permits the caller of foo_update_a() to
+immediately regain control, without needing to worry further about the
+old version of the newly updated element.  It also clearly shows the
+RCU distinction between updater, namely foo_update_a(), and reclaimer,
+namely foo_reclaim().
+
+The summary of advice is the same as for the previous section, except
+that we are now using call_rcu() rather than synchronize_rcu():
+
+o	Use call_rcu() -after- removing a data element from an
+	RCU-protected data structure in order to register a callback
+	function that will be invoked after the completion of all RCU
+	read-side critical sections that might be referencing that
+	data item.
+
+Again, see checklist.txt for additional rules governing the use of RCU.
+
+
+5.  WHAT ARE SOME SIMPLE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF RCU?
+
+One of the nice things about RCU is that it has extremely simple "toy"
+implementations that are a good first step towards understanding the
+production-quality implementations in the Linux kernel.  This section
+presents two such "toy" implementations of RCU, one that is implemented
+in terms of familiar locking primitives, and another that more closely
+resembles "classic" RCU.  Both are way too simple for real-world use,
+lacking both functionality and performance.  However, they are useful
+in getting a feel for how RCU works.  See kernel/rcupdate.c for a
+production-quality implementation, and see:
+
+	http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU
+
+for papers describing the Linux kernel RCU implementation.  The OLS'01
+and OLS'02 papers are a good introduction, and the dissertation provides
+more details on the current implementation.
+
+
+5A.  "TOY" IMPLEMENTATION #1: LOCKING
+
+This section presents a "toy" RCU implementation that is based on
+familiar locking primitives.  Its overhead makes it a non-starter for
+real-life use, as does its lack of scalability.  It is also unsuitable
+for realtime use, since it allows scheduling latency to "bleed" from
+one read-side critical section to another.
+
+However, it is probably the easiest implementation to relate to, so is
+a good starting point.
+
+It is extremely simple:
+
+	static DEFINE_RWLOCK(rcu_gp_mutex);
+
+	void rcu_read_lock(void)
+	{
+		read_lock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
+	}
+
+	void rcu_read_unlock(void)
+	{
+		read_unlock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
+	}
+
+	void synchronize_rcu(void)
+	{
+		write_lock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
+		write_unlock(&rcu_gp_mutex);
+	}
+
+[You can ignore rcu_assign_pointer() and rcu_dereference() without
+missing much.  But here they are anyway.  And whatever you do, don't
+forget about them when submitting patches making use of RCU!]
+
+	#define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v)	({ \
+							smp_wmb(); \
+							(p) = (v); \
+						})
+
+	#define rcu_dereference(p)     ({ \
+					typeof(p) _________p1 = p; \
+					smp_read_barrier_depends(); \
+					(_________p1); \
+					})
+
+
+The rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() primitive read-acquire
+and release a global reader-writer lock.  The synchronize_rcu()
+primitive write-acquires this same lock, then immediately releases
+it.  This means that once synchronize_rcu() exits, all RCU read-side
+critical sections that were in progress before synchonize_rcu() was
+called are guaranteed to have completed -- there is no way that
+synchronize_rcu() would have been able to write-acquire the lock
+otherwise.
+
+It is possible to nest rcu_read_lock(), since reader-writer locks may
+be recursively acquired.  Note also that rcu_read_lock() is immune
+from deadlock (an important property of RCU).  The reason for this is
+that the only thing that can block rcu_read_lock() is a synchronize_rcu().
+But synchronize_rcu() does not acquire any locks while holding rcu_gp_mutex,
+so there can be no deadlock cycle.
+
+Quick Quiz #1:	Why is this argument naive?  How could a deadlock
+		occur when using this algorithm in a real-world Linux
+		kernel?  How could this deadlock be avoided?
+
+
+5B.  "TOY" EXAMPLE #2: CLASSIC RCU
+
+This section presents a "toy" RCU implementation that is based on
+"classic RCU".  It is also short on performance (but only for updates) and
+on features such as hotplug CPU and the ability to run in CONFIG_PREEMPT
+kernels.  The definitions of rcu_dereference() and rcu_assign_pointer()
+are the same as those shown in the preceding section, so they are omitted.
+
+	void rcu_read_lock(void) { }
+
+	void rcu_read_unlock(void) { }
+
+	void synchronize_rcu(void)
+	{
+		int cpu;
+
+		for_each_cpu(cpu)
+			run_on(cpu);
+	}
+
+Note that rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() do absolutely nothing.
+This is the great strength of classic RCU in a non-preemptive kernel:
+read-side overhead is precisely zero, at least on non-Alpha CPUs.
+And there is absolutely no way that rcu_read_lock() can possibly
+participate in a deadlock cycle!
+
+The implementation of synchronize_rcu() simply schedules itself on each
+CPU in turn.  The run_on() primitive can be implemented straightforwardly
+in terms of the sched_setaffinity() primitive.  Of course, a somewhat less
+"toy" implementation would restore the affinity upon completion rather
+than just leaving all tasks running on the last CPU, but when I said
+"toy", I meant -toy-!
+
+So how the heck is this supposed to work???
+
+Remember that it is illegal to block while in an RCU read-side critical
+section.  Therefore, if a given CPU executes a context switch, we know
+that it must have completed all preceding RCU read-side critical sections.
+Once -all- CPUs have executed a context switch, then -all- preceding
+RCU read-side critical sections will have completed.
+
+So, suppose that we remove a data item from its structure and then invoke
+synchronize_rcu().  Once synchronize_rcu() returns, we are guaranteed
+that there are no RCU read-side critical sections holding a reference
+to that data item, so we can safely reclaim it.
+
+Quick Quiz #2:	Give an example where Classic RCU's read-side
+		overhead is -negative-.
+
+Quick Quiz #3:  If it is illegal to block in an RCU read-side
+		critical section, what the heck do you do in
+		PREEMPT_RT, where normal spinlocks can block???
+
+
+6.  ANALOGY WITH READER-WRITER LOCKING
+
+Although RCU can be used in many different ways, a very common use of
+RCU is analogous to reader-writer locking.  The following unified
+diff shows how closely related RCU and reader-writer locking can be.
+
+	@@ -13,15 +14,15 @@
+		struct list_head *lp;
+		struct el *p;
+
+	-	read_lock();
+	-	list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) {
+	+	rcu_read_lock();
+	+	list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, head, lp) {
+			if (p->key == key) {
+				*result = p->data;
+	-			read_unlock();
+	+			rcu_read_unlock();
+				return 1;
+			}
+		}
+	-	read_unlock();
+	+	rcu_read_unlock();
+		return 0;
+	 }
+
+	@@ -29,15 +30,16 @@
+	 {
+		struct el *p;
+
+	-	write_lock(&listmutex);
+	+	spin_lock(&listmutex);
+		list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) {
+			if (p->key == key) {
+				list_del(&p->list);
+	-			write_unlock(&listmutex);
+	+			spin_unlock(&listmutex);
+	+			synchronize_rcu();
+				kfree(p);
+				return 1;
+			}
+		}
+	-	write_unlock(&listmutex);
+	+	spin_unlock(&listmutex);
+		return 0;
+	 }
+
+Or, for those who prefer a side-by-side listing:
+
+ 1 struct el {                          1 struct el {
+ 2   struct list_head list;             2   struct list_head list;
+ 3   long key;                          3   long key;
+ 4   spinlock_t mutex;                  4   spinlock_t mutex;
+ 5   int data;                          5   int data;
+ 6   /* Other data fields */            6   /* Other data fields */
+ 7 };                                   7 };
+ 8 spinlock_t listmutex;                8 spinlock_t listmutex;
+ 9 struct el head;                      9 struct el head;
+
+ 1 int search(long key, int *result)    1 int search(long key, int *result)
+ 2 {                                    2 {
+ 3   struct list_head *lp;              3   struct list_head *lp;
+ 4   struct el *p;                      4   struct el *p;
+ 5                                      5
+ 6   read_lock();                       6   rcu_read_lock();
+ 7   list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) { 7   list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, head, lp) {
+ 8     if (p->key == key) {             8     if (p->key == key) {
+ 9       *result = p->data;             9       *result = p->data;
+10       read_unlock();                10       rcu_read_unlock();
+11       return 1;                     11       return 1;
+12     }                               12     }
+13   }                                 13   }
+14   read_unlock();                    14   rcu_read_unlock();
+15   return 0;                         15   return 0;
+16 }                                   16 }
+
+ 1 int delete(long key)                 1 int delete(long key)
+ 2 {                                    2 {
+ 3   struct el *p;                      3   struct el *p;
+ 4                                      4
+ 5   write_lock(&listmutex);            5   spin_lock(&listmutex);
+ 6   list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) { 6   list_for_each_entry(p, head, lp) {
+ 7     if (p->key == key) {             7     if (p->key == key) {
+ 8       list_del(&p->list);            8       list_del(&p->list);
+ 9       write_unlock(&listmutex);      9       spin_unlock(&listmutex);
+                                       10       synchronize_rcu();
+10       kfree(p);                     11       kfree(p);
+11       return 1;                     12       return 1;
+12     }                               13     }
+13   }                                 14   }
+14   write_unlock(&listmutex);         15   spin_unlock(&listmutex);
+15   return 0;                         16   return 0;
+16 }                                   17 }
+
+Either way, the differences are quite small.  Read-side locking moves
+to rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock, update-side locking moves from
+from a reader-writer lock to a simple spinlock, and a synchronize_rcu()
+precedes the kfree().
+
+However, there is one potential catch: the read-side and update-side
+critical sections can now run concurrently.  In many cases, this will
+not be a problem, but it is necessary to check carefully regardless.
+For example, if multiple independent list updates must be seen as
+a single atomic update, converting to RCU will require special care.
+
+Also, the presence of synchronize_rcu() means that the RCU version of
+delete() can now block.  If this is a problem, there is a callback-based
+mechanism that never blocks, namely call_rcu(), that can be used in
+place of synchronize_rcu().
+
+
+7.  FULL LIST OF RCU APIs
+
+The RCU APIs are documented in docbook-format header comments in the
+Linux-kernel source code, but it helps to have a full list of the
+APIs, since there does not appear to be a way to categorize them
+in docbook.  Here is the list, by category.
+
+Markers for RCU read-side critical sections:
+
+	rcu_read_lock
+	rcu_read_unlock
+	rcu_read_lock_bh
+	rcu_read_unlock_bh
+
+RCU pointer/list traversal:
+
+	rcu_dereference
+	list_for_each_rcu		(to be deprecated in favor of
+					 list_for_each_entry_rcu)
+	list_for_each_safe_rcu		(deprecated, not used)
+	list_for_each_entry_rcu
+	list_for_each_continue_rcu	(to be deprecated in favor of new
+					 list_for_each_entry_continue_rcu)
+	hlist_for_each_rcu		(to be deprecated in favor of
+					 hlist_for_each_entry_rcu)
+	hlist_for_each_entry_rcu
+
+RCU pointer update:
+
+	rcu_assign_pointer
+	list_add_rcu
+	list_add_tail_rcu
+	list_del_rcu
+	list_replace_rcu
+	hlist_del_rcu
+	hlist_add_head_rcu
+
+RCU grace period:
+
+	synchronize_kernel (deprecated)
+	synchronize_net
+	synchronize_sched
+	synchronize_rcu
+	call_rcu
+	call_rcu_bh
+
+See the comment headers in the source code (or the docbook generated
+from them) for more information.
+
+
+8.  ANSWERS TO QUICK QUIZZES
+
+Quick Quiz #1:	Why is this argument naive?  How could a deadlock
+		occur when using this algorithm in a real-world Linux
+		kernel?  [Referring to the lock-based "toy" RCU
+		algorithm.]
+
+Answer:		Consider the following sequence of events:
+
+		1.	CPU 0 acquires some unrelated lock, call it
+			"problematic_lock".
+
+		2.	CPU 1 enters synchronize_rcu(), write-acquiring
+			rcu_gp_mutex.
+
+		3.	CPU 0 enters rcu_read_lock(), but must wait
+			because CPU 1 holds rcu_gp_mutex.
+
+		4.	CPU 1 is interrupted, and the irq handler
+			attempts to acquire problematic_lock.
+
+		The system is now deadlocked.
+
+		One way to avoid this deadlock is to use an approach like
+		that of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, where all normal spinlocks
+		become blocking locks, and all irq handlers execute in
+		the context of special tasks.  In this case, in step 4
+		above, the irq handler would block, allowing CPU 1 to
+		release rcu_gp_mutex, avoiding the deadlock.
+
+		Even in the absence of deadlock, this RCU implementation
+		allows latency to "bleed" from readers to other
+		readers through synchronize_rcu().  To see this,
+		consider task A in an RCU read-side critical section
+		(thus read-holding rcu_gp_mutex), task B blocked
+		attempting to write-acquire rcu_gp_mutex, and
+		task C blocked in rcu_read_lock() attempting to
+		read_acquire rcu_gp_mutex.  Task A's RCU read-side
+		latency is holding up task C, albeit indirectly via
+		task B.
+
+		Realtime RCU implementations therefore use a counter-based
+		approach where tasks in RCU read-side critical sections
+		cannot be blocked by tasks executing synchronize_rcu().
+
+Quick Quiz #2:	Give an example where Classic RCU's read-side
+		overhead is -negative-.
+
+Answer:		Imagine a single-CPU system with a non-CONFIG_PREEMPT
+		kernel where a routing table is used by process-context
+		code, but can be updated by irq-context code (for example,
+		by an "ICMP REDIRECT" packet).	The usual way of handling
+		this would be to have the process-context code disable
+		interrupts while searching the routing table.  Use of
+		RCU allows such interrupt-disabling to be dispensed with.
+		Thus, without RCU, you pay the cost of disabling interrupts,
+		and with RCU you don't.
+
+		One can argue that the overhead of RCU in this
+		case is negative with respect to the single-CPU
+		interrupt-disabling approach.  Others might argue that
+		the overhead of RCU is merely zero, and that replacing
+		the positive overhead of the interrupt-disabling scheme
+		with the zero-overhead RCU scheme does not constitute
+		negative overhead.
+
+		In real life, of course, things are more complex.  But
+		even the theoretical possibility of negative overhead for
+		a synchronization primitive is a bit unexpected.  ;-)
+
+Quick Quiz #3:  If it is illegal to block in an RCU read-side
+		critical section, what the heck do you do in
+		PREEMPT_RT, where normal spinlocks can block???
+
+Answer:		Just as PREEMPT_RT permits preemption of spinlock
+		critical sections, it permits preemption of RCU
+		read-side critical sections.  It also permits
+		spinlocks blocking while in RCU read-side critical
+		sections.
+
+		Why the apparent inconsistency?  Because it is it
+		possible to use priority boosting to keep the RCU
+		grace periods short if need be (for example, if running
+		short of memory).  In contrast, if blocking waiting
+		for (say) network reception, there is no way to know
+		what should be boosted.  Especially given that the
+		process we need to boost might well be a human being
+		who just went out for a pizza or something.  And although
+		a computer-operated cattle prod might arouse serious
+		interest, it might also provoke serious objections.
+		Besides, how does the computer know what pizza parlor
+		the human being went to???
+
+
+ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
+
+My thanks to the people who helped make this human-readable, including
+Jon Walpole, Josh Triplett, Serge Hallyn, and Suzanne Wood.
+
+
+For more information, see http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU.