Vince Weaver and Stephane Eranian reported warnings in the PEBS
code when running the perf fuzzer. Stephane wrote:

  > I can reproduce the problem on my HSW running the fuzzer.
  >
  > I can see why this could be happening if you are mixing PEBS and non PEBS events
  > in the bottom 4 counters. I suspect:
  >         for (bit = 0; bit < x86_pmu.max_pebs_events; bit++) {
  >                 if ((counts[bit] == 0) && (error[bit] == 0))
  >                         continue;
  >
  > This test is not correct when you have non-PEBS events mixed with
  > PEBS events and they overflow at the same time. They will have
  > counts[i] != 0 but error[i] == 0, and thus you fall thru the loop
  > and hit the assert. Or it is something along those lines.

The only way I can make this work is if ->status only has !PEBS events
set, because if it has both set we'll take that slow path which masks
out the !PEBS bits.

After masking there are 3 options:

 - there is one bit set, and its @bit, we increment counts[bit].

 - there are multiple bits set, we increment error[] for each set bit,
   we do not increment counts[].

 - there are no bits set, we do nothing.

The intent was to never increment counts[] for !PEBS events.

Now if we start out with only a single !PEBS event set, we'll pass the
test and increment counts[] for a !PEBS and hit the warn.
Reported-by: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>
Reported-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: kan.liang@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>