locking, rwsem: Annotate inner lock as raw

There is no reason to allow the lock protecting rwsems (the
ownerless variant) to be preemptible on -rt. Convert it to raw.

In mainline this change documents the low level nature of
the lock - otherwise there's no functional difference. Lockdep
and Sparse checking will work as usual.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
rwsem: Implement writer lock-stealing for better scalability

Commit 5a505085f043 ("mm/rmap: Convert the struct anon_vma::mutex
to an rwsem") changed struct anon_vma::mutex to an rwsem, which
caused aim7 fork_test performance to drop by 50%.

Yuanhan Liu did the following excellent analysis:

    https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/29/84

and found that the regression is caused by strict, serialized,
FIFO sequential write-ownership of rwsems. Ingo suggested
implementing opportunistic lock-stealing for the front writer
task in the waitqueue.

Yuanhan Liu implemented lock-stealing for spinlock-rwsems,
which indeed recovered much of the regression - confirming
the analysis that the main factor in the regression was the
FIFO writer-fairness of rwsems.

In this patch we allow lock-stealing to happen when the first
waiter is also writer. With that change in place the
aim7 fork_test performance is fully recovered on my
Intel NHM EP, NHM EX, SNB EP 2S and 4S test-machines.

Reported-by: lkp@linux.intel.com
Reported-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: paul.gortmaker@windriver.com
Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/29/84
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1360069915-31619-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com
[ Small stylistic fixes, updated changelog. ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
rwsem-spinlock: let rwsem write lock stealable

We(Linux Kernel Performance project) found a regression introduced by
commit 5a50508, which just convert all mutex lock to rwsem write lock.
The semantics is same, but the results is quite huge in some cases.
After investigation, we found the root cause: mutex support lock
stealing. Here is the link for the detailed regression report:
    https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/29/84

Ingo suggests to add write lock stealing to rwsem as well:
    "I think we should allow lock-steal between rwsem writers - that
     will not hurt fairness as most rwsem fairness concerns relate to
     reader vs. writer fairness"

And here is the rwsem-spinlock version.

With this patch, we got a double performance increase in one test box
with following aim7 workfile:
    FILESIZE: 1M
    POOLSIZE: 10M
    10 fork_test

some /usr/bin/time output w/o patch      some /usr/bin/time_output with patch
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of CPU this job got: 369%        Percent of CPU this job got: 537%
Voluntary context switches: 640595016    Voluntary context switches: 157915561
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will see we got a 45% increase of CPU usage and saves about 3/4
voluntary context switches.
Here is the .nr_running filed for all CPUs from /proc/sched_debug.

output w/o this patch:
----------------------
cpu 00:   0   0   ...   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   1   0   1 .... 0   0
cpu 01:   0   0   ...   1   0   0   0   0   0   1   1   0   1 .... 0   0
cpu 02:   0   0   ...   1   1   0   0   0   1   0   0   1   0 .... 1   1
cpu 03:   0   0   ...   0   1   0   0   0   1   1   0   1   1 .... 0   0
cpu 04:   0   1   ...   0   0   2   1   1   2   1   0   1   0 .... 1   0
cpu 05:   0   1   ...   0   0   2   1   1   2   1   1   1   1 .... 0   0
cpu 06:   0   0   ...   2   0   0   1   0   0   1   0   0   0 .... 0   0
cpu 07:   0   0   ...   2   0   0   0   1   0   1   1   0   0 .... 1   0
cpu 08:   0   0   ...   1   0   0   0   1   0   0   1   0   0 .... 0   1
cpu 09:   0   0   ...   1   0   0   0   1   0   0   1   0   0 .... 0   1
cpu 10:   0   0   ...   0   0   0   2   0   0   1   0   1   1 .... 1   2
cpu 11:   0   0   ...   0   0   0   2   2   0   1   0   1   0 .... 1   2
cpu 12:   0   0   ...   2   0   0   0   1   1   3   1   1   1 .... 1   0
cpu 13:   0   0   ...   2   0   0   0   1   1   3   1   1   0 .... 1   1
cpu 14:   0   0   ...   0   0   0   2   0   0   1   1   0   0 .... 1   0
cpu 15:   0   0   ...   1   0   0   2   0   0   1   1   0   0 .... 0   0
output with this patch:
-----------------------
cpu 00:   0   0   ...   1   1   2   1   1   1   2   1   1   1 .... 1   3
cpu 01:   0   0   ...   1   1   1   1   1   1   2   1   1   1 .... 1   3
cpu 02:   0   0   ...   2   2   3   2   0   2   1   2   1   1 .... 1   1
cpu 03:   0   0   ...   2   2   3   2   1   2   1   2   1   1 .... 1   1
cpu 04:   0   1   ...   2   0   0   1   0   1   3   1   1   1 .... 1   1
cpu 05:   0   1   ...   2   0   1   1   0   1   2   1   1   1 .... 1   1
cpu 06:   0   0   ...   2   1   1   2   0   1   2   1   1   1 .... 2   1
cpu 07:   0   0   ...   2   1   1   2   0   1   2   1   1   1 .... 2   1
cpu 08:   0   0   ...   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1 .... 0   0
cpu 09:   0   0   ...   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1 .... 0   0
cpu 10:   0   0   ...   1   1   1   0   0   1   1   1   1   1 .... 0   0
cpu 11:   0   0   ...   1   1   1   0   0   1   1   1   1   2 .... 1   0
cpu 12:   0   0   ...   1   1   1   0   1   1   0   0   0   1 .... 2   1
cpu 13:   0   0   ...   1   1   1   0   1   1   1   0   1   2 .... 2   0
cpu 14:   0   0   ...   2   0   0   0   0   1   1   1   1   1 .... 2   2
cpu 15:   0   0   ...   2   0   0   1   0   1   1   1   1   1 .... 2   2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where you can see that CPU is much busier with this patch.
v2: make it stealable at __down_write_trylock as well, pointed by Michel

Reported-by: LKP project <lkp@linux.intel.com>
Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
backported for Grouper Kernel from LKML reference

Signed-off-by: faux123 <reioux@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
locking, rwsem: Annotate inner lock as raw

There is no reason to allow the lock protecting rwsems (the
ownerless variant) to be preemptible on -rt. Convert it to raw.

In mainline this change documents the low level nature of
the lock - otherwise there's no functional difference. Lockdep
and Sparse checking will work as usual.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Conflicts:
	lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
rwsem-spinlock: Implement writer lock-stealing for better scalability

We (Linux Kernel Performance project) found a regression
introduced by commit:

  5a505085f043 mm/rmap: Convert the struct anon_vma::mutex to an rwsem

which converted all anon_vma::mutex locks rwsem write locks.

The semantics are the same, but the behavioral difference is
quite huge in some cases. After investigating it we found the
root cause: mutexes support lock stealing while rwsems don't.

Here is the link for the detailed regression report:

  https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/29/84

Ingo suggested adding write lock stealing to rwsems:

    "I think we should allow lock-steal between rwsem writers - that
     will not hurt fairness as most rwsem fairness concerns relate to
     reader vs. writer fairness"

And here is the rwsem-spinlock version.

With this patch, we got a double performance increase in one
test box with following aim7 workfile:

    FILESIZE: 1M
    POOLSIZE: 10M
    10 fork_test

 /usr/bin/time output w/o patch                       /usr/bin/time_output with patch
 -- Percent of CPU this job got: 369%                 Percent of CPU this job got: 537%
 Voluntary context switches: 640595016                Voluntary context switches: 157915561

We got a 45% increase in CPU usage and saved about 3/4 voluntary context switches.

Reported-by: LKP project <lkp@linux.intel.com>
Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: paul.gortmaker@windriver.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1359716356-23865-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Conflicts:
	lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
rwsem: make the waiter type an enumeration rather than a bitmask

We are not planning to add some new waiter flags, so we can convert the
waiter type into an enumeration.

Background: David Howells suggested I do this back when I tried adding
a new waiter type for unfair readers. However, I believe the cleanup
applies regardless of that use case.

Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
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
block: row: hardcode values research by the community, you guys know who you are.

Signed-off-by: Francisco Franco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	block/row-iosched.c
block: row: this should be 2.

Signed-off-by: Francisco Franco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>