On 10.12.2019 13:51, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
Commit:
ccbebba4c6bf ("perf/x86/intel/pt: Bypass PT vs. LBR exclusivity if the core supports it")
skips the PT/LBR exclusivity check on CPUs where PT and LBRs coexist, but also inadvertently skips the active_events bump for PT in that case, which is a bug. If there aren't any hardware events at the same time as PT, the PMI handler will ignore PT PMIs, as active_events reads zero in that case, resulting in the "Uhhuh" spurious NMI warning and PT data loss.
Fix this by always increasing active_events for PT events.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Shishkin alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com Fixes: ccbebba4c6bf ("perf/x86/intel/pt: Bypass PT vs. LBR exclusivity if the core supports it") Reported-by: Vitaly Slobodskoy vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.7
arch/x86/events/core.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Alexey Budankov alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c index 6e3f0c18908e..5a736197dfa4 100644 --- a/arch/x86/events/core.c +++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c @@ -375,7 +375,7 @@ int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what) * LBR and BTS are still mutually exclusive. */ if (x86_pmu.lbr_pt_coexist && what == x86_lbr_exclusive_pt)
return 0;
goto out;if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what])) { mutex_lock(&pmc_reserve_mutex); @@ -387,6 +387,7 @@ int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what) mutex_unlock(&pmc_reserve_mutex); } +out: atomic_inc(&active_events); return 0; @@ -397,11 +398,15 @@ int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what) void x86_del_exclusive(unsigned int what) {
- atomic_dec(&active_events);
- /*
* See the comment in x86_add_exclusive().*/atomic_dec(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what]);
- atomic_dec(&active_events);
} int x86_setup_perfctr(struct perf_event *event)