[PATCH] perf: do poll_wait() before checking condition in perf_poll()

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
I haven't Cc stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx since nobody cared about this  since
day one.

 kernel/events/core.c | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index 6b17ac1..4aa3375 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -3528,6 +3528,7 @@ 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.
@@ -3537,9 +3538,6 @@ 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;
 }
 
-- 
2.0.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/