perf fixes

index 632e5dc..e638689 100644
@@ -613,8 +613,8 @@ static int x86_setup_perfctr(struct perf_event *event)
 	/*
 	 * Branch tracing:
 	 */
-	if ((attr->config == PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS) &&
-	    (hwc->sample_period == 1)) {
+	if (attr->config == PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS &&
+	    !attr->freq && hwc->sample_period == 1) {
 		/* BTS is not supported by this architecture. */
 		if (!x86_pmu.bts_active)
 			return -EOPNOTSUPP;

@@ -1288,6 +1288,16 @@ static int x86_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
 
 	cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);
 
+	/*
+	 * Some chipsets need to unmask the LVTPC in a particular spot
+	 * inside the nmi handler.  As a result, the unmasking was pushed
+	 * into all the nmi handlers.
+	 *
+	 * This generic handler doesn't seem to have any issues where the
+	 * unmasking occurs so it was left at the top.
+	 */
+	apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
+
 	for (idx = 0; idx < x86_pmu.num_counters; idx++) {
 		if (!test_bit(idx, cpuc->active_mask)) {
 			/*

@@ -1374,8 +1384,6 @@ perf_event_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self,
 		return NOTIFY_DONE;
 	}
 
-	apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
-
 	handled = x86_pmu.handle_irq(args->regs);
 	if (!handled)
 		return NOTIFY_DONE;

index 43fa20b..e61539b 100644
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ struct intel_percore {
 /*
  * Intel PerfMon, used on Core and later.
  */
-static const u64 intel_perfmon_event_map[] =
+static u64 intel_perfmon_event_map[PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX] __read_mostly =
 {
   [PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES]		= 0x003c,
   [PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS]		= 0x00c0,

@@ -933,6 +933,16 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
 
 	cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);
 
+	/*
+	 * Some chipsets need to unmask the LVTPC in a particular spot
+	 * inside the nmi handler.  As a result, the unmasking was pushed
+	 * into all the nmi handlers.
+	 *
+	 * This handler doesn't seem to have any issues with the unmasking
+	 * so it was left at the top.
+	 */
+	apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
+
 	intel_pmu_disable_all();
 	handled = intel_pmu_drain_bts_buffer();
 	status = intel_pmu_get_status();

@@ -998,6 +1008,9 @@ intel_bts_constraints(struct perf_event *event)
 	struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
 	unsigned int hw_event, bts_event;
 
+	if (event->attr.freq)
+		return NULL;
+
 	hw_event = hwc->config & INTEL_ARCH_EVENT_MASK;
 	bts_event = x86_pmu.event_map(PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_INSTRUCTIONS);
 

@@ -1305,7 +1318,7 @@ static void intel_clovertown_quirks(void)
 	 * AJ106 could possibly be worked around by not allowing LBR
 	 *       usage from PEBS, including the fixup.
 	 * AJ68  could possibly be worked around by always programming
-	 * 	 a pebs_event_reset[0] value and coping with the lost events.
+	 *	 a pebs_event_reset[0] value and coping with the lost events.
 	 *
 	 * But taken together it might just make sense to not enable PEBS on
 	 * these chips.

@@ -1409,6 +1422,18 @@ static __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
 		x86_pmu.percore_constraints = intel_nehalem_percore_constraints;
 		x86_pmu.enable_all = intel_pmu_nhm_enable_all;
 		x86_pmu.extra_regs = intel_nehalem_extra_regs;
+
+		if (ebx & 0x40) {
+			/*
+			 * Erratum AAJ80 detected, we work it around by using
+			 * the BR_MISP_EXEC.ANY event. This will over-count
+			 * branch-misses, but it's still much better than the
+			 * architectural event which is often completely bogus:
+			 */
+			intel_perfmon_event_map[PERF_COUNT_HW_BRANCH_MISSES] = 0x7f89;
+
+			pr_cont("erratum AAJ80 worked around, ");
+		}
 		pr_cont("Nehalem events, ");
 		break;
 

index d1f77e2..e93fcd5 100644
@@ -950,11 +950,20 @@ static int p4_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
 			x86_pmu_stop(event, 0);
 	}
 
-	if (handled) {
-		/* p4 quirk: unmask it again */
-		apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, apic_read(APIC_LVTPC) & ~APIC_LVT_MASKED);
+	if (handled)
 		inc_irq_stat(apic_perf_irqs);
-	}
+
+	/*
+	 * When dealing with the unmasking of the LVTPC on P4 perf hw, it has
+	 * been observed that the OVF bit flag has to be cleared first _before_
+	 * the LVTPC can be unmasked.
+	 *
+	 * The reason is the NMI line will continue to be asserted while the OVF
+	 * bit is set.  This causes a second NMI to generate if the LVTPC is
+	 * unmasked before the OVF bit is cleared, leading to unknown NMI
+	 * messages.
+	 */
+	apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
 
 	return handled;
 }