perf/x86/intel: Fix PT PMI handling

Commit:

  ccbebba ("perf/x86/intel/pt: Bypass PT vs. LBR exclusivity if the core supports it")

skips the PT/LBR exclusivity check on CPUs where PT and LBRs coexist, but
also inadvertently skips the active_events bump for PT in that case, which
is a bug. If there aren't any hardware events at the same time as PT, the
PMI handler will ignore PT PMIs, as active_events reads zero in that case,
resulting in the "Uhhuh" spurious NMI warning and PT data loss.

Fix this by always increasing active_events for PT events.

Fixes: ccbebba ("perf/x86/intel/pt: Bypass PT vs. LBR exclusivity if the core supports it")
Reported-by: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191210105101.77210-1-alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com

arch/x86/events/core.c

@@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what)
 	 * LBR and BTS are still mutually exclusive.
 	 */
 	if (x86_pmu.lbr_pt_coexist && what == x86_lbr_exclusive_pt)
-		return 0;
+		goto out;
 
 	if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what])) {
 		mutex_lock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
@@ -388,6 +388,7 @@ int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what)
 		mutex_unlock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
 	}
 
+out:
 	atomic_inc(&active_events);
 	return 0;
 
@@ -398,11 +399,15 @@ int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what)
 
 void x86_del_exclusive(unsigned int what)
 {
+	atomic_dec(&active_events);
+
+	/*
+	 * See the comment in x86_add_exclusive().
+	 */
 	if (x86_pmu.lbr_pt_coexist && what == x86_lbr_exclusive_pt)
 		return;
 
 	atomic_dec(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what]);
-	atomic_dec(&active_events);
 }
 
 int x86_setup_perfctr(struct perf_event *event)