rwsem: shorter spinlocked section in rwsem_down_failed_common()

This change reduces the size of the spinlocked and TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
sections in rwsem_down_failed_common():

- We only need the sem->wait_lock to insert ourselves on the wait_list;
  the waiter node can be prepared outside of the wait_lock.

- The task state only needs to be set to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE immediately
  before checking if we actually need to sleep; it doesn't need to protect
  the entire function.

Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
rwsem: move rwsem_down_failed_common code into rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed

Remove the rwsem_down_failed_common function and replace it with two
identical copies of its code in rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed.
This is because we want to make different optimizations in
rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed; we are adding this pure-duplication
step as a separate commit in order to make it easier to check the
following steps.

Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
rwsem: simplify rwsem_down_read_failed

When trying to acquire a read lock, the RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS adjustment
doesn't cause other readers to block, so we never have to worry about waking
them back after canceling this adjustment in rwsem_down_read_failed().

We also never want to steal the lock in rwsem_down_read_failed(), so we
don't have to grab the wait_lock either.

Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
rwsem: simplify rwsem_down_write_failed

When waking writers, we never grant them the lock - instead, they have
to acquire it themselves when they run, and remove themselves from the
wait_list when they succeed.

As a result, we can do a few simplifications in rwsem_down_write_failed():

- We don't need to check for !waiter.task since __rwsem_do_wake() doesn't
  remove writers from the wait_list

- There is no point releaseing the wait_lock before entering the wait loop,
  as we will need to reacquire it immediately. We can change the loop so
  that the lock is always held at the start of each loop iteration.

- We don't need to get a reference on the task structure, since the task
  is responsible for removing itself from the wait_list. There is no risk,
  like in the rwsem_down_read_failed() case, that a task would wake up and
  exit (thus destroying its task structure) while __rwsem_do_wake() is
  still running - wait_lock protects against that.

Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
rwsem: more agressive lock stealing in rwsem_down_write_failed

Some small code simplifications can be achieved by doing more agressive
lock stealing:

- When rwsem_down_write_failed() notices that there are no active locks
  (and thus no thread to wake us if we decided to sleep), it used to wake
  the first queued process. However, stealing the lock is also sufficient
  to deal with this case, so we don't need this check anymore.

- In try_get_writer_sem(), we can steal the lock even when the first waiter
  is a reader. This is correct because the code path that wakes readers is
  protected by the wait_lock. As to the performance effects of this change,
  they are expected to be minimal: readers are still granted the lock
  (rather than having to acquire it themselves) when they reach the front
  of the wait queue, so we have essentially the same behavior as in
  rwsem-spinlock.

Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
rwsem: use cmpxchg for trying to steal write lock

Using rwsem_atomic_update to try stealing the write lock forced us to
undo the adjustment in the failure path. We can have simpler and faster
code by using cmpxchg instead.

Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
rwsem: avoid taking wait_lock in rwsem_down_write_failed

In rwsem_down_write_failed(), if there are active locks after we wake up
(i.e. the lock got stolen from us), skip taking the wait_lock and go back
to sleep immediately.

Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
rwsem: simplify __rwsem_do_wake

This is mostly for cleanup value:

- We don't need several gotos to handle the case where the first
  waiter is a writer. Two simple tests will do (and generate very
  similar code).

- In the remainder of the function, we know the first waiter is a reader,
  so we don't have to double check that. We can use do..while loops
  to iterate over the readers to wake (generates slightly better code).

Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
rwsem: implement support for write lock stealing on the fastpath

When we decide to wake up readers, we must first grant them as many
read locks as necessary, and then actually wake up all these readers.
But in order to know how many read shares to grant, we must first
count the readers at the head of the queue. This might take a while
if there are many readers, and we want to be protected against a
writer stealing the lock while we're counting. To that end, we grant
the first reader lock before counting how many more readers are queued.

We also require some adjustments to the wake_type semantics.

RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE used to mean that we had found the count to
be RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, in which case the rwsem was known to be free
as nobody could steal it while we hold the wait_lock. This doesn't
make sense once we implement fastpath write lock stealing, so we now
use RWSEM_WAKE_ANY in that case.

Similarly, when rwsem_down_write_failed found that a read lock was active,
it would use RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED which signalled that new readers could
be woken without checking first that the rwsem was available. We can't do
that anymore since the existing readers might release their read locks,
and a writer could steal the lock before we wake up additional readers.
So, we have to use a new RWSEM_WAKE_READERS value to indicate we only want
to wake readers, but we don't currently hold any read lock.

Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
rwsem: do not block readers at head of queue if other readers are active

This change fixes a race condition where a reader might determine it
needs to block, but by the time it acquires the wait_lock the rwsem
has active readers and no queued waiters.

In this situation the reader can just in parallel with the existing active
readers; it does not need to block until the active readers complete.

Thanks to Peter Hurley for noticing this possible race.

Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
+ lib: strncpy_from_user & strnlen_user
-> https://github.com/faux123/tuna/commit/2fb6cccc9fe41bbce04c3bd796dc40768fa2761e
-> https://github.com/faux123/tuna/commit/cc107ec0127d685b4641509293d5bf18c490cb51
-> https://github.com/faux123/tuna/commit/08a87874f10ca874cae08cb0ba8943eb4c5ca923
-> https://github.com/faux123/tuna/commit/96b570368112d422f4e864fef79f727aad8ad328
-> https://github.com/faux123/tuna/commit/8b1ab9edfc006a7cfbf882c9d3d8996e6920032b

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/Kconfig
frandom.c: Add frandom Module support - Help and Source: https://github.com/Ryuinferno

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/configs/tuna_ak_defconfig

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/configs/tuna_ak_defconfig