rcu_read_unlock_trace(9)

πŸ“¦ version 7.3.1, in nixpkgs unstable

πŸ’… rcu_read_unlock_trace(9)

okay so bestie, this is a page from the Kernel API Manual (the 9 section, kernel devs only, iykyk) and it's about one tiny little function that closes out an RCU-trace read-side critical section. short page. important job. let's get into it πŸŽ€


✨ NAME ✨

rcu_read_unlock_trace β€” the "and that's a wrap" for an RCU-trace read-side critical section πŸ¦‹


🌸 SYNOPSIS 🌸

void rcu_read_unlock_trace (void );

that's it. that's the whole call. no args, no drama, no nothing πŸ’…


πŸŽ€ ARGUMENTS πŸŽ€

  • void β€” no arguments. zero. none. void girl summer 🫢

πŸ’– DESCRIPTION πŸ’–

so here's the vibe: this function is the literal other half of a rcu_read_lock_trace call. you lock, you do your thing, you call this, and the section is done. pairs with a preceding call to rcu_read_lock_trace, no cap ✨

nesting? allowed. go off, stack them if you need to, she doesn't mind 🌸

⚠️ but bestie. listen. invoking rcu_read_unlock_trace when there is no matching rcu_read_lock_trace is verboten β€” literally forbidden, not cute at all β€” and it will result in lockdep complaints 😭 lockdep will absolutely call you out in the group chat.

want the full lore? for more details, please see the documentation for rcu_read_unlock. same energy, different lock family 🧚


πŸ”₯ SEE ALSO πŸ”₯

like, the whole tasks-trace friend group. follow them all, they're all iconic ⭐


vibe check recap: one call, no args, must match a rcu_read_lock_trace, nesting is fine, and an unmatched unlock gets you a lockdep complaint fr fr. that's the whole tea πŸ’€

later babes πŸ’œ this one lives under ./include/linux, dated October 2026, and it's rcu_read_unlock_trace(9) β€” don't forget her name πŸ“

πŸ“¦ where this page comes from