mm, vmalloc: remove useless variable in vmap_block

vbq in vmap_block isn't used. So remove it.

Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Reviewed-by: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
mm, vmalloc: use well-defined find_last_bit() func

Our intention in here is to find last_bit within the region to flush.
There is well-defined function, find_last_bit() for this purpose and its
performance may be slightly better than current implementation.  So change
it.

Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Reviewed-by: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
nohz: Reduce overhead under high-freq idling patterns

One testbox of mine (Intel Nehalem, 16-way) uses MWAIT for its idle routine,
which apparently can break out of its idle loop rather frequently, with
high frequency.

In that case NO_HZ_FULL=y kernels show high ksoftirqd overhead and constant
context switching, because tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() will, if
delta_jiffies == 0, mis-identify this as a timer event - activating the
TIMER_SOFTIRQ, which wakes up ksoftirqd.

Fix this by treating delta_jiffies == 0 the same way we treat other short
wakeups, delta_jiffies == 1.

Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Geoff Levand <geoff@infradead.org>
Cc: Gilad Ben Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
Cc: Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@gmail.com>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>
Cc: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
timers: Create detach_if_pending() and use it

Most callers of detach_timer() have the same pattern around
them. Check whether the timer is pending and eventually updating
base->next_timer.

Create detach_if_pending() and replace the duplicated code.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
timers: Consolidate base->next_timer update

Another bunch of mindlessly copied code. All callers of
internal_add_timer() except the recascading code updates
base->next_timer.

Move this into internal_add_timer() and let the cascading code call
__internal_add_timer().

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
timers: Add accounting of non deferrable timers

The code in get_next_timer_interrupt() is suboptimal as it has to run
through the cascade to find the next expiring timer. On a completely
idle core we should only do that when there is an active timer
enqueued and base->next_timer does not give us an fast answer.

Add accounting of the active timers to the now consolidated
attach/detach code. I deliberately avoided sanity checks because the
code is fully symetric and any fiddling with timers w/o using the API
functions will lead to cute explosions anyway. ulong is big enough
even on 32bit and if we really run into the situation to have more
than 1<<32 timers enqueued there, then we are definitely not in a
state to go idle and run through that code.

This allows us to fix another shortcoming of get_next_timer_interrupt().

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
timers: Improve get_next_timer_interrupt()

Gilad reported at

 http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1336056962-10465-2-git-send-email-gilad@benyossef.com

"Current timer code fails to correctly return a value meaning that
 there is no future timer event, with the result that the timer keeps
 getting re-armed in HZ one shot mode even when we could turn it off,
 generating unneeded interrupts.

 What is happening is that when __next_timer_interrupt() wishes
 to return a value that signifies "there is no future timer
 event", it returns (base->timer_jiffies + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA).

 However, the code in tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(), which called
 __next_timer_interrupt() via get_next_timer_interrupt(),
 compares the return value to (last_jiffies + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA)
 to see if the timer needs to be re-armed.

 base->timer_jiffies != last_jiffies and so tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick()
 interperts the return value as indication that there is a distant
 future event 12 days from now and programs the timer to fire next
 after KTIME_MAX nsecs instead of avoiding to arm it. This ends up
 causing a needless interrupt once every KTIME_MAX nsecs."

Fix this by using the new active timer accounting. This avoids scans
when no active timer is enqueued completely, so we don't have to rely
on base->timer_next and base->timer_jiffies anymore.

Reported-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>