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 a25460559b4fb4844bb831a80ed1c4f5f25a5870..2d7363adf678f2038081813d2cd4ca5dac469384 100644 (file)
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -3629,6 +3629,7 @@ static unsigned int perf_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
        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 @@ static unsigned int perf_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
        if (rb)
                events = atomic_xchg(&rb->poll, 0);
        mutex_unlock(&event->mmap_mutex);
-
-       poll_wait(file, &event->waitq, wait);
-
        return events;
 }