On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 05:50:14PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:14:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Some aspects of the implementation may deserve particular comment:
> > >
> > > * In the interest of performance, each object is governed only by a single
> > > spinlock. However, NTSYNC_IOC_WAIT_ALL requires that the state of
> > > multiple
> > > objects be changed as a single atomic operation. In order to achieve
> > > this, we
> > > first take a device-wide lock ("wait_all_lock") any time we are going
> > > to lock
> > > more than one object at a time.
> > >
> > > The maximum number of objects that can be used in a vectored wait, and
> > > therefore the maximum that can be locked simultaneously, is 64. This
> > > number is
> > > NT's own limit.
>
> AFAICT:
>
> spin_lock(&dev->wait_all_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(entry, &obj->all_waiters, node)
> for (i=0; i<count; i++)
> spin_lock_nest_lock(q->entries[i].obj->lock, &dev->wait_all_lock);
>
> Where @count <= NTSYNC_MAX_WAIT_COUNT.
>
> So while this nests at most 65 spinlocks, there is no actual bound on
> the amount of nested lock sections in total. That is, all_waiters list
> can be grown without limits.
>
> Can we pretty please make wait_all_lock a mutex ?
Hurmph, it's worse, you do that list walk while holding some obj->lock
spinlokc too. Still need to figure out how all that works....
