perf: Fix signed comparison in perf_adjust_period()

Frederic reported that frequency driven swevents didn't work properly
and even caused a division-by-zero error.

It turns out there are two bugs, the division-by-zero comes from a
failure to deal with that in perf_calculate_period().

The other was more interesting and turned out to be a wrong comparison
in perf_adjust_period(). The comparison was between an s64 and u64 and
got implicitly converted to an unsigned comparison. The problem is
that period_left is typically < 0, so it ended up being always true.

Cure this by making the local period variables s64.

Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

diff --git a/kernel/perf_event.c b/kernel/perf_event.c
index 31d6afe9259412025f02e20bddcc37fa3bf4d62b..ff86c558af4c28dd4c9a7ea92cc592b70bee6d7d 100644 (file)
--- a/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
@@ -1507,6 +1507,9 @@ do {                                      \
                divisor = nsec * frequency;
        }
 
+       if (!divisor)
+               return dividend;
+
        return div64_u64(dividend, divisor);
 }
 
@@ -1529,7 +1532,7 @@ static int perf_event_start(struct perf_event *event)
 static void perf_adjust_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 nsec, u64 count)
 {
        struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
-       u64 period, sample_period;
+       s64 period, sample_period;
        s64 delta;
 
        period = perf_calculate_period(event, nsec, count);