tools/memory-model: Update README for addition of SRCU

This commit updates the section on LKMM limitations to no longer say
that SRCU is not modeled, but instead describe how LKMM's modeling of
SRCU departs from the Linux-kernel implementation.

TL;DR:  There is no known valid use case that cares about the Linux
kernel's ability to have partially overlapping SRCU read-side critical
sections.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>

tools/memory-model/README

@@ -221,8 +221,29 @@ The Linux-kernel memory model has the following limitations:
 		additional call_rcu() process to the site of the
 		emulated rcu-barrier().
 
-	e.	Sleepable RCU (SRCU) is not modeled.  It can be
+	e.	Although sleepable RCU (SRCU) is now modeled, there
-		emulated, but perhaps not simply.
+		are some subtle differences between its semantics and
+		those in the Linux kernel.  For example, the kernel
+		might interpret the following sequence as two partially
+		overlapping SRCU read-side critical sections:
+
+			 1  r1 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu);
+			 2  do_something_1();
+			 3  r2 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu);
+			 4  do_something_2();
+			 5  srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r1);
+			 6  do_something_3();
+			 7  srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r2);
+
+		In contrast, LKMM will interpret this as a nested pair of
+		SRCU read-side critical sections, with the outer critical
+		section spanning lines 1-7 and the inner critical section
+		spanning lines 3-5.
+
+		This difference would be more of a concern had anyone
+		identified a reasonable use case for partially overlapping
+		SRCU read-side critical sections.  For more information,
+		please see: https://paulmck.livejournal.com/40593.html
 
 	f.	Reader-writer locking is not modeled.  It can be
 		emulated in litmus tests using atomic read-modify-write