cpufreq: fix utilization statistics for sync cpus

If the cpus are using related_cpus policy, then the
current implementaion will overwrite the the calculated
load for every iteration in the for loop. Hence, mpdecision
will read incorrect value, if the cores are using related
cpus policy. With this change mpdecision will read the
sum of the loads of all cpu's, if related cpu policy is
used.

Change-Id: I242c8fe39fd75dc3e48750a5b78a5d218b536ddd
Signed-off-by: Narayanan Gopalakrishnan <nargop@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Shruthi Krishna <skrish@codeaurora.org>
cpufreq: Fix sysfs deadlock with concurrent hotplug/frequency switch

Running one program that continuously hotplugs and replugs a cpu
concurrently with another program that continuously writes to the
scaling_set_speed node eventually deadlocks with:

=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
3.4.0 #37 Tainted: G        W
---------------------------------------------
filemonkey/122 is trying to acquire lock:
 (s_active#13){++++.+}, at: [<c01a3d28>] sysfs_remove_dir+0x9c/0xb4

but task is already holding lock:
 (s_active#13){++++.+}, at: [<c01a22f0>] sysfs_write_file+0xe8/0x140

other info that might help us debug this:
 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0
       ----
  lock(s_active#13);
  lock(s_active#13);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

 May be due to missing lock nesting notation

2 locks held by filemonkey/122:
 #0:  (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c01a2230>] sysfs_write_file+0x28/0x140
 #1:  (s_active#13){++++.+}, at: [<c01a22f0>] sysfs_write_file+0xe8/0x140

stack backtrace:
[<c0014fcc>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x120) from [<c00ca600>] (validate_chain+0x6f8/0x1054)
[<c00ca600>] (validate_chain+0x6f8/0x1054) from [<c00cb778>] (__lock_acquire+0x81c/0x8d8)
[<c00cb778>] (__lock_acquire+0x81c/0x8d8) from [<c00cb9c0>] (lock_acquire+0x18c/0x1e8)
[<c00cb9c0>] (lock_acquire+0x18c/0x1e8) from [<c01a3ba8>] (sysfs_addrm_finish+0xd0/0x180)
[<c01a3ba8>] (sysfs_addrm_finish+0xd0/0x180) from [<c01a3d28>] (sysfs_remove_dir+0x9c/0xb4)
[<c01a3d28>] (sysfs_remove_dir+0x9c/0xb4) from [<c02d0e5c>] (kobject_del+0x10/0x38)
[<c02d0e5c>] (kobject_del+0x10/0x38) from [<c02d0f74>] (kobject_release+0xf0/0x194)
[<c02d0f74>] (kobject_release+0xf0/0x194) from [<c0565a98>] (cpufreq_cpu_put+0xc/0x24)
[<c0565a98>] (cpufreq_cpu_put+0xc/0x24) from [<c05683f0>] (store+0x6c/0x74)
[<c05683f0>] (store+0x6c/0x74) from [<c01a2314>] (sysfs_write_file+0x10c/0x140)
[<c01a2314>] (sysfs_write_file+0x10c/0x140) from [<c014af44>] (vfs_write+0xb0/0x128)
[<c014af44>] (vfs_write+0xb0/0x128) from [<c014b06c>] (sys_write+0x3c/0x68)
[<c014b06c>] (sys_write+0x3c/0x68) from [<c000e0e0>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c)

This is because store() in cpufreq.c indirectly grabs a kobject
with kobject_get() and is the last one to call kobject_put()
indirectly via cpufreq_cpu_put().

Fix this deadlock by introducing two new functions,
cpufreq_cpu_get_sysfs() and cpufreq_cpu_put_sysfs() which do the
same thing as cpufreq_cpu_{get,put}() but don't grab the kobject.

CRs-fixed: 366560
Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
(cherry picked from commit f82ef51be26b44b83d86afa56b3cd9c743023470)

Change-Id: Ibde742d55fd4f770c402b8abce31ec266c57007d
Signed-off-by: Sridhar Gujje <sgujje@codeaurora.org>