Lines Matching full:guarantee

58 #. `Grace-Period Guarantee`_
59 #. `Publish/Subscribe Guarantee`_
64 Grace-Period Guarantee
67 RCU's grace-period guarantee is unusual in being premeditated: Jack
68 Slingwine and I had this guarantee firmly in mind when we started work
71 understanding of this guarantee.
73 RCU's grace-period guarantee allows updaters to wait for the completion
83 This guarantee allows ordering to be enforced with extremely low
174 the ``synchronize_rcu()`` in ``start_recovery()`` to guarantee that
196 Although RCU's grace-period guarantee is useful in and of itself, with
199 data structures. For this, the grace-period guarantee is not sufficient,
251 which brings us to the publish-subscribe guarantee discussed in the next
254 Publish/Subscribe Guarantee
257 RCU's publish-subscribe guarantee allows data to be inserted into a
455 In short, RCU's publish-subscribe guarantee is provided by the
457 guarantee allows data elements to be safely added to RCU-protected
458 linked data structures without disrupting RCU readers. This guarantee
459 can be used in combination with the grace-period guarantee to also allow
463 This guarantee was only partially premeditated. DYNIX/ptx used an
490    this guarantee, a pre-existing RCU read-side critical section might
497    guarantee, a later RCU read-side critical section running after the
502    during the execution of ``synchronize_rcu()``. This guarantee ensures
508    execution of ``synchronize_rcu()``. This guarantee also ensures that
556 | Yes, they really are required. To see why the first guarantee is      |
641 guarantee was reverse-engineered, not premeditated. The unconditional
645 guarantee. Therefore, the justification for adding a conditional
673 This guarantee allows lookup code to be shared between read-side and
683 really is. Of course, the list of things that RCU does not guarantee is
2241 ``->next`` field. RCU makes this guarantee as long as ``call_rcu()`` is
2584 ``synchronize_rcu()`` would guarantee that execution reached the
2585 ``rcu_read_unlock()``, it would not be able to guarantee that execution