perf/x86: Fix 'active_events' imbalance

Commit 1b7b938f1817 ("perf/x86/intel: Fix PMI handling for Intel PT") conditionally
increments active_events in x86_add_exclusive() but unconditionally decrements in
x86_del_exclusive().

These extra decrements can lead to the situation where
active_events is zero and thus the PMI handler is 'disabled'
while we have active events on the PMU generating PMIs.

This leads to a truckload of:

  Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 21 on CPU 28.
  Do you have a strange power saving mode enabled?
  Dazed and confused, but trying to continue

messages and generally messes up perf.

Remove the condition on the increment, double increment balanced
by a double decrement is perfectly fine.

Restructure the code a little bit to make the unconditional inc
a bit more natural.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com
Cc: brgerst@gmail.com
Cc: dvlasenk@redhat.com
Cc: luto@amacapital.net
Cc: oleg@redhat.com
Fixes: 1b7b938f1817 ("perf/x86/intel: Fix PMI handling for Intel PT")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150624144750.GJ18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
index 5801a14f7524315a7318fe5a0f60509704fdb756..3658de47900f9a921a0f8373db962e061d42db3a 100644 (file)
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
@@ -357,34 +357,24 @@ void x86_release_hardware(void)
  */
 int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what)
 {
-       int ret = -EBUSY, i;
-
-       if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what]))
-               return 0;
+       int i;
 
-       mutex_lock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
-       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive); i++) {
-               if (i != what && atomic_read(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[i]))
-                       goto out;
+       if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what])) {
+               mutex_lock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
+               for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive); i++) {
+                       if (i != what && atomic_read(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[i]))
+                               goto fail_unlock;
+               }
+               atomic_inc(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what]);
+               mutex_unlock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
        }
 
-       atomic_inc(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what]);
-       ret = 0;
+       atomic_inc(&active_events);
+       return 0;
 
-out:
+fail_unlock:
        mutex_unlock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
-
-       /*
-        * Assuming that all exclusive events will share the PMI handler
-        * (which checks active_events for whether there is work to do),
-        * we can bump active_events counter right here, except for
-        * x86_lbr_exclusive_lbr events that go through x86_pmu_event_init()
-        * path, which already bumps active_events for them.
-        */
-       if (!ret && what != x86_lbr_exclusive_lbr)
-               atomic_inc(&active_events);
-
-       return ret;
+       return -EBUSY;
 }
 
 void x86_del_exclusive(unsigned int what)