perf: Do poll_wait() before checking condition in perf_poll()
One should first enqueue to the waitqueue and then check for the
condition. If the condition gets true after mutex_unlock() but before
poll_wait() then we lose it and would have wait for another wakeup.
This has been like this since v2.6.31-rc1 commit c7138f37f9 ("perf_counter:
fix perf_poll()"). Before that it was slightly worse. I guess we get enough
wakeups so if we miss here one it doesn't really matter. It is still a
bad example.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1407159068-1478-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index a254605..2d7363a 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -3629,6 +3629,7 @@
struct ring_buffer *rb;
unsigned int events = POLL_HUP;
+ poll_wait(file, &event->waitq, wait);
/*
* Pin the event->rb by taking event->mmap_mutex; otherwise
* perf_event_set_output() can swizzle our rb and make us miss wakeups.
@@ -3638,9 +3639,6 @@
if (rb)
events = atomic_xchg(&rb->poll, 0);
mutex_unlock(&event->mmap_mutex);
-
- poll_wait(file, &event->waitq, wait);
-
return events;
}