[tip:perf/urgent] perf/x86: Fix 'active_events' imbalance

[tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra <tipbot@zytor.com>]

Commit-ID:  93472aff802fd7b61f2209335207e9bd793012f7
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/93472aff802fd7b61f2209335207e9bd793012f7
Author:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
AuthorDate: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:47:50 +0200
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CommitDate: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:08:46 +0200

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>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 36 +++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
index 5801a14..3658de4 100644
--- 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)