panic: Fix a possible deadlock in panic()

panic_lock is meant to ensure that panic processing takes
place only on one cpu; if any of the other cpus encounter
a panic, they will spin waiting to be shut down.

However, this causes a regression in this scenario:

1. Cpu 0 encounters a panic and acquires the panic_lock
   and proceeds with the panic processing.
2. There is an interrupt on cpu 0 that also encounters
   an error condition and invokes panic.
3. This second invocation fails to acquire the panic_lock
   and enters the infinite while loop in panic_smp_self_stop.

Thus all panic processing is stopped, and the cpu is stuck
for eternity in the while(1) inside panic_smp_self_stop.

To address this, disable local interrupts with
local_irq_disable before acquiring the panic_lock. This will
prevent interrupt handlers from executing during the panic
processing, thus avoiding this particular problem.

Signed-off-by: Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@codeaurora.org>
(cherry picked from commit dd58afef43357f265e803c317bbaa91f8c440663)

Change-Id: I5f7ebcf2a028df265a57922b6c959e686a82026a
Signed-off-by: Swetha Basineni <sbasin@codeaurora.org>
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
bdi: use deferable timer for sync_supers task

sync_supers task currently wakes up periodically for superblock
writeback. This hurts power on battery driven devices. This patch
turns this housekeeping timer into a deferable timer so that it
does not fire when system is really idle.

CRs-Fixed: 353700
Signed-off-by: Yong Wang <yong.y.wang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Xia Wu <xia.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Krishna Vanka <kvanka@codeaurora.org>
(cherry picked from commit f398f30d1f34632d3c96758b5b19e65b056af072)

Change-Id: I6ec6310d66c0d014adf0f41e75cd4c48c233f83d
Signed-off-by: Sridhar Gujje <sgujje@codeaurora.org>