ARM: 7133/1: SMP: fix per cpu timer setup before the cpu is marked online

The problem is related to the early enabling of interrupts and the
per cpu timer setup before the cpu is marked online. This doesn't
need to be done in order to call calibrate_delay().

calibrate_delay() monitors jiffies, which are updated from the CPU
which is waiting for the new CPU to set the online bit.

So simply calibrate_delay() can be called on the new CPU just from
the interrupt disabled region and move the local timer setup after
stored the cpu data and before enabling interrupts.

This solves both the cpu_online vs. cpu_active problem and the
affinity setting of the per cpu timers.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleinxer <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
sched: Cleanup cpu_active madness

Stepan found:

CPU0		CPUn

_cpu_up()
  __cpu_up()

		boostrap()
		  notify_cpu_starting()
		  set_cpu_online()
		  while (!cpu_active())
		    cpu_relax()

<PREEMPT-out>

smp_call_function(.wait=1)
  /* we find cpu_online() is true */
  arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask()

  /* wait-forever-more */

<PREEMPT-in>
		  local_irq_enable()

  cpu_notify(CPU_ONLINE)
    sched_cpu_active()
      set_cpu_active()

Now the purpose of cpu_active is mostly with bringing down a cpu, where
we mark it !active to avoid the load-balancer from moving tasks to it
while we tear down the cpu. This is required because we only update the
sched_domain tree after we brought the cpu-down. And this is needed so
that some tasks can still run while we bring it down, we just don't want
new tasks to appear.

On cpu-up however the sched_domain tree doesn't yet include the new cpu,
so its invisible to the load-balancer, regardless of the active state.
So instead of setting the active state after we boot the new cpu (and
consequently having to wait for it before enabling interrupts) set the
cpu active before we set it online and avoid the whole mess.

Change-Id: Id564d0a195de2b700db29c264ed2f926c4f0ca09
Reported-by: Stepan Moskovchenko <stepanm@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1323965362.18942.71.camel@twins
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
sched: Fix select_fallback_rq() vs cpu_active/cpu_online

Commit 5fbd036b55 ("sched: Cleanup cpu_active madness"), which was
supposed to finally sort the cpu_active mess, instead uncovered more.

Since CPU_STARTING is ran before setting the cpu online, there's a
(small) window where the cpu has active,!online.

If during this time there's a wakeup of a task that used to reside on
that cpu select_task_rq() will use select_fallback_rq() to compute an
alternative cpu to run on since we find !online.

select_fallback_rq() however will compute the new cpu against
cpu_active, this means that it can return the same cpu it started out
with, the !online one, since that cpu is in fact marked active.

This results in us trying to scheduling a task on an offline cpu and
triggering a WARN in the IPI code.

The solution proposed by Chuansheng Liu of setting cpu_active in
set_cpu_online() is buggy, firstly not all archs actually use
set_cpu_online(), secondly, not all archs call set_cpu_online() with
IRQs disabled, this means we would introduce either the same race or
the race from fd8a7de17 ("x86: cpu-hotplug: Prevent softirq wakeup on
wrong CPU") -- albeit much narrower.

[ By setting online first and active later we have a window of
  online,!active, fresh and bound kthreads have task_cpu() of 0 and
  since cpu0 isn't in tsk_cpus_allowed() we end up in
  select_fallback_rq() which excludes !active, resulting in a reset
  of ->cpus_allowed and the thread running all over the place. ]

The solution is to re-work select_fallback_rq() to require active
_and_ online. This makes the active,!online case work as expected,
OTOH archs running CPU_STARTING after setting online are now
vulnerable to the issue from fd8a7de17 -- these are alpha and
blackfin.

Reported-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Cc: linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-hubqk1i10o4dpvlm06gq7v6j@git.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Conflicts:

	kernel/sched/core.c

Change-Id: Ib22f61c28494bcccc40f9f7fa3812c72e5528203
i2c-algo-bit: Don't resched on clock stretching

Clock stretching is not supposed to last long, so asking to be
rescheduled while waiting for the clock line to be released by a slave
makes little sense. Odds are that the clock line will long have been
released when we run again, so we will have lost time and may even
get an SMBus timeout because of this.

So just busy-wait in that case. This also participates in the effort
to make i2c-algo-bit usable in contexts that can't sleep.

Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Cc: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
video: msm: Fix big scary warning during bootup

 * Don't turn the clocks on until the device is configured.

Change-Id: Ic6d3bfa2ec2bfeb507823a701e09a28333f36440