leandrof/linux
1
0
Fork 0
forked from Minki/linux
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

perf/x86: Fix 'active_events' imbalance

Browse Source 
Commit 1b7b938f18 ("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: 1b7b938f18 ("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>
This commit is contained in:
Peter Zijlstra 2015-06-24 16:47:50 +02:00 committed by Ingo Molnar
parent 2d6dac2fcc
commit 93472aff80
1 changed files with 13 additions and 23 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

36
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
View File

@ -357,34 +357,24 @@ void x86_release_hardware(void)
*/
int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what)
{
int ret = -EBUSY, i;
int i;
if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what]))
return 0;
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)