input: evdev: Move wake_lock_destroy call

Calling wake_lock_destroy from inside a spinlock
protected region (or, in general, from atomic context)
leads to a 'scheduling while atomic bug' because the
internal wakeup source deletion logic calls
synchronize_rcu, which can sleep. Moreover,
since the interal lists are already protected with
RCUs and spinlocks, putting the wake_lock_destroy
call in a spinlock is redundant.

Change-Id: I10a2239b664a5f43e54495f24fe588fb09282305
Signed-off-by: Anurag Singh <anursing@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: franciscofranco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>
 mm/vmscan.c: avoid possible deadlock caused by too_many_isolated() Ne…

…il found that if too_many_isolated() returns true while performing direct reclaim we can end up waiting for other threads to complete their direct reclaim. If those threads are allowed to enter the FS or IO to free memory, but this thread is not, then it is possible that those threads will be waiting on this thread and so we get a circular deadlock.

some task enters direct reclaim with GFP_KERNEL
  => too_many_isolated() false
    => vmscan and run into dirty pages
      => pageout()
        => take some FS lock
          => fs/block code does GFP_NOIO allocation
            => enter direct reclaim again
              => too_many_isolated() true
                => waiting for others to progress, however the other
                   tasks may be circular waiting for the FS lock..

priority than normal ones, by lowering the throttle threshold for the
latter.

Allowing ~1/8 isolated pages in normal is large enough.  For example, for
a 1GB LRU list, that's ~128MB isolated pages, or 1k blocked tasks (each
isolates 32 4KB pages), or 64 blocked tasks per logical CPU (assuming 16
logical CPUs per NUMA node).  So it's not likely some CPU goes idle
waiting (when it could make progress) because of this limit: there are
much more sleeping reclaim tasks than the number of CPU, so the task may
well be blocked by some low level queue/lock anyway.

reclaims, however that's very unlikely because the IO-less direct reclaims
is able to progress much more faster, and they won't deadlock each other.
The threshold is raised high enough for them, so that there can be

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: tweak comment]
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Torsten Kaiser <just.for.lkml@googlemail.com>
Tested-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
set the transition latency value=40000