writeback: Fix occasional slow sync(1)

In case when system contains no dirty pages, wakeup_flusher_threads()
will submit WB_SYNC_NONE writeback for 0 pages so wb_writeback() exits
immediately without doing anything. Thus sync(1) will write all the
dirty inodes from a WB_SYNC_ALL writeback pass which is slow.

Fix the problem by using get_nr_dirty_pages() in
wakeup_flusher_threads() instead of calculating number of dirty pages
manually. That function also takes number of dirty inodes into account.

CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Paul Taysom <taysom@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Cristoforo Cataldo <cristoforo.cataldo@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Francisco Franco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>
USB force fast charging

-Use base from Chad Froebel <chadfroebel@gmail.com> so we continue to
use the same generic sysfs mechanism

-Referenced franco's git for drivers/usb/otg/msm_otg.c changes
https://github.com/franciscofranco/mako/commit/5a8a4c8e23c7e1df39c740b9ce1d5dda20b0ede3

Off by default

Turn on:
echo 1 > /sys/kernel/fast_charge/force_fast_charge

Turn off:
echo 0 > /sys/kernel/fast_charge/force_fast_charge

Signed-off-by: franciscofranco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>
ARM: 7493/1: use generic unaligned.h

This moves ARM over to the asm-generic/unaligned.h header. This has the
benefit of better code generated especially for ARMv7 on gcc 4.7+
compilers.

As Arnd Bergmann, points out: The asm-generic version uses the "struct"
version for native-endian unaligned access and the "byteshift" version
for the opposite endianess. The current ARM version however uses the
"byteshift" implementation for both.

Thanks to Nicolas Pitre for the excellent analysis:

Test case:

int foo (int *x) { return get_unaligned(x); }
long long bar (long long *x) { return get_unaligned(x); }

With the current ARM version:

foo:
	ldrb	r3, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B]
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B]
	ldrb	r2, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	mov	r3, r3, asl #16	@ tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B],
	ldrb	r0, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B]
	orr	r3, r3, r1, asl #8	@, tmp155, tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B],
	orr	r3, r3, r2	@ tmp157, tmp155, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	orr	r0, r3, r0, asl #24	@,, tmp157, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B],
	bx	lr	@

bar:
	stmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}	@,
	mov	r2, #0	@ tmp184,
	ldrb	r5, [r0, #6]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B]
	ldrb	r4, [r0, #5]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B]
	ldrb	ip, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B]
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #4]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B]
	mov	r5, r5, asl #16	@ tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B],
	ldrb	r7, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B]
	orr	r5, r5, r4, asl #8	@, tmp176, tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B],
	ldrb	r6, [r0, #7]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B]
	orr	r5, r5, r1	@ tmp178, tmp176, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B]
	ldrb	r4, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	mov	ip, ip, asl #16	@ tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B],
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B]
	orr	ip, ip, r7, asl #8	@, tmp189, tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B],
	orr	r3, r5, r6, asl #24	@,, tmp178, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B],
	orr	ip, ip, r4	@ tmp191, tmp189, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	orr	ip, ip, r1, asl #24	@, tmp194, tmp191, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B],
	mov	r1, r3	@,
	orr	r0, r2, ip	@ tmp171, tmp184, tmp194
	ldmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}
	bx	lr

In both cases the code is slightly suboptimal.  One may wonder why
wasting r2 with the constant 0 in the second case for example.  And all
the mov's could be folded in subsequent orr's, etc.

Now with the asm-generic version:

foo:
	ldr	r0, [r0, #0]	@ unaligned	@,* x
	bx	lr	@

bar:
	mov	r3, r0	@ x, x
	ldr	r0, [r0, #0]	@ unaligned	@,* x
	ldr	r1, [r3, #4]	@ unaligned	@,
	bx	lr	@

This is way better of course, but only because this was compiled for
ARMv7. In this case the compiler knows that the hardware can do
unaligned word access.  This isn't that obvious for foo(), but if we
remove the get_unaligned() from bar as follows:

long long bar (long long *x) {return *x; }

then the resulting code is:

bar:
	ldmia	r0, {r0, r1}	@ x,,
	bx	lr	@

So this proves that the presumed aligned vs unaligned cases does have
influence on the instructions the compiler may use and that the above
unaligned code results are not just an accident.

Still... this isn't fully conclusive without at least looking at the
resulting assembly fron a pre ARMv6 compilation.  Let's see with an
ARMv5 target:

foo:
	ldrb	r3, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp139,* x
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp140,
	ldrb	r2, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp143,
	ldrb	r0, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp146,
	orr	r3, r3, r1, asl #8	@, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140,
	orr	r3, r3, r2, asl #16	@, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143,
	orr	r0, r3, r0, asl #24	@,, tmp145, tmp146,
	bx	lr	@

bar:
	stmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}	@,
	ldrb	r2, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp139,* x
	ldrb	r7, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp140,
	ldrb	r3, [r0, #4]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp149,
	ldrb	r6, [r0, #5]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp150,
	ldrb	r5, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp143,
	ldrb	r4, [r0, #6]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp153,
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #7]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp156,
	ldrb	ip, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp146,
	orr	r2, r2, r7, asl #8	@, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140,
	orr	r3, r3, r6, asl #8	@, tmp152, tmp149, tmp150,
	orr	r2, r2, r5, asl #16	@, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143,
	orr	r3, r3, r4, asl #16	@, tmp155, tmp152, tmp153,
	orr	r0, r2, ip, asl #24	@,, tmp145, tmp146,
	orr	r1, r3, r1, asl #24	@,, tmp155, tmp156,
	ldmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}
	bx	lr

Compared to the initial results, this is really nicely optimized and I
couldn't do much better if I were to hand code it myself.

Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
modified for Mako from kernel.org reference

Signed-off-by: faux123 <reioux@gmail.com>
ARM: 7492/1: add strstr declaration for decompressors

With the generic unaligned.h, more kernel headers get pulled in including
dynamic_debug.h which needs strstr. As it is not really used, we only need
a declaration here.

Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
ARM: 7592/1: nommu: prevent generation of kernel unaligned memory accesses

Recent ARMv7 toolchains assume that unaligned memory accesses will not
fault and will instead be handled by the processor.

For the nommu case (without an MPU), memory will be treated as
strongly-ordered and therefore unaligned accesses may fault regardless
of the SCTLR.A setting.

This patch passes -mno-unaligned-access to GCC when compiling for nommu
targets, preventing the generation of unaligned memory access in the
kernel.

Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Jonathan Austin <jonathan.austin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
ARM: 7583/1: decompressor: Enable unaligned memory access
 for v6 and above

Modern GCC can generate code which makes use of the CPU's native
unaligned memory access capabilities.  This is useful for the C
decompressor implementations used for unpacking compressed kernels.

This patch disables alignment faults and enables the v6 unaligned
access model on CPUs which support these features (i.e., v6 and
later), allowing full unaligned access support for C code in the
decompressor.

The decompressor C code must not be built to assume that unaligned
access works if support for v5 or older platforms is included in
the kernel.

For correct code generation, C decompressor code must always use
the get_unaligned and put_unaligned accessors when dealing with
unaligned pointers, regardless of this patch.

Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
writeback: fix writeback cache thrashing

Consider Process A: huge I/O on sda
        doing heavy write operation - dirty memory becomes more
        than dirty_background_ratio
        on HDD - flusher thread flush-8:0

Consider Process B: small I/O on sdb
        doing while [1]; read 1024K + rewrite 1024K + sleep 2sec
        on Flash device - flusher thread flush-8:16

As Process A is a heavy dirtier, dirty memory becomes more
than dirty_background_thresh. Due to this, below check becomes
true(checking global_page_state in over_bground_thresh)
for all bdi devices(even for very small dirtied bdi - sdb):

In this case, even small cached data on 'sdb' is forced to flush
and writeback cache thrashing happens.

When we added debug prints inside above 'if' condition and ran
above Process A(heavy dirtier on bdi with flush-8:0) and
Process B(1024K frequent read/rewrite on bdi with flush-8:16)
we got below prints:

[Test setup: ARM dual core CPU, 512 MB RAM]

[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  56064 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  56704 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 84720 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 94720 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   384 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   960 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =    64 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92160 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   256 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   768 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =    64 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   256 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   320 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =     0 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92032 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 91968 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   192 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  1024 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =    64 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   192 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   576 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =     0 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 84352 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   192 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   512 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =     0 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92608 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92544 KB

As mentioned in above log, when global dirty memory > global background_thresh
small cached data is also forced to flush by flush-8:16.
If removing global background_thresh checking code, we can reduce cache
thrashing of frequently used small data.
And It will be great if we can reserve a portion of writeback cache using
min_ratio.

After applying patch:
$ echo 5 > /sys/block/sdb/bdi/min_ratio
$ cat /sys/block/sdb/bdi/min_ratio
5
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  56064 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  56704 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  84160 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  96960 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  94080 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  93120 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  93120 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  91520 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  89600 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  93696 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  93696 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  72960 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  90624 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  90624 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  90688 KB

As mentioned in the above logs, once cache is reserved for Process B,
and patch is applied there is less writeback cache thrashing on sdb
by frequent forced writeback by flush-8:16 in over_bground_thresh.

After all, small cached data will be flushed by periodic writeback
once every dirty_writeback_interval.

Suggested-by: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@samsung.com>