The mediated_pmu_account_event() and perf_create_mediated_pmu()
functions implement the exclusion between '!exclude_guest' counters
and mediated vPMUs. Their implementation is basically identical,
except mirrored in what they count/check.
Make sure the actual implementations reflect this similarity.
Notably:
- while perf_release_mediated_pmu() has an underflow check;
mediated_pmu_unaccount_event() did not.
- while perf_create_mediated_pmu() has an inc_not_zero() path;
mediated_pmu_account_event() did not.
Also, the inc_not_zero() path can be outsite of
perf_mediated_pmu_mutex. The mutex must guard the 0->1 (of either
nr_include_guest_events or nr_mediated_pmu_vms) transition, but once a
counter is already non-zero, it can safely be incremented further.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20251208115156.GE3707891@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net
if (!is_include_guest_event(event))
return 0;
- guard(mutex)(&perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
+ if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&nr_include_guest_events))
+ return 0;
+ guard(mutex)(&perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
if (atomic_read(&nr_mediated_pmu_vms))
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
if (!is_include_guest_event(event))
return;
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!atomic_read(&nr_include_guest_events)))
+ return;
+
atomic_dec(&nr_include_guest_events);
}
*/
int perf_create_mediated_pmu(void)
{
- guard(mutex)(&perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&nr_mediated_pmu_vms))
return 0;
+ guard(mutex)(&perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
if (atomic_read(&nr_include_guest_events))
return -EBUSY;