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>
Signed-off-by: umberto1978 <ur.tecnotop@gmail.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>
Signed-off-by: umberto1978 <ur.tecnotop@gmail.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>
Signed-off-by: umberto1978 <ur.tecnotop@gmail.com>