block: cgroups, kconfig, build bits for BFQ-v6-3.4

Update Kconfig.iosched and do the related Makefile changes to include
kernel configuration options for BFQ. Also add the bfqio controller
to the cgroups subsystem.

Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it>
Signed-off-by: Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
block: introduce the BFQ-v6 I/O sched for 3.4

Add the BFQ-v6 I/O scheduler to 3.4.
The general structure is borrowed from CFQ, as much code. A (bfq_)queue is
associated to each task doing I/O on a device, and each time a scheduling
decision has to be made a queue is selected and served until it expires.

    - Slices are given in the service domain: tasks are assigned budgets,
      measured in number of sectors. Once got the disk, a task must
      however consume its assigned budget within a configurable maximum time
      (by default, the maximum possible value of the budgets is automatically
      computed to comply with this timeout). This allows the desired latency
      vs "throughput boosting" tradeoff to be set.

    - Budgets are scheduled according to a variant of WF2Q+, implemented
      using an augmented rb-tree to take eligibility into account while
      preserving an O(log N) overall complexity.

    - A low-latency tunable is provided; if enabled, both interactive and soft
      real-time applications are guaranteed very low latency.

    - Latency guarantees are preserved also in presence of NCQ.

    - Also with flash-based devices, a high throughput is achieved while
      still preserving latency guarantees.

    - A useful feature borrowed from CFQ: static fallback queue for OOM.

    - Differently from CFQ, BFQ uses a unified mechanism (Early Queue Merge,
      EQM) to get a sequential read pattern, and hence a high throughput,
      with any set of processes performing interleaved I/O. EQM also
      preserves low latency. The code for detecting whether two queues have
      to be merged is a slightly modified version of the CFQ code for
      detecting whether two queues belong to cooperating processes and whether
      the service of a queue should be preempted to boost the throughput.

    - BFQ supports full hierarchical scheduling, exporting a cgroups
      interface.  Each node has a full scheduler, so each group can
      be assigned its own ioprio (mapped to a weight, see next point)
      and an ioprio_class.

    - If the cgroups interface is used, weights can be explictly assigned,
      otherwise ioprio values are mapped to weights using the relation
      weight = IOPRIO_BE_NR - ioprio.

    - ioprio classes are served in strict priority order, i.e., lower
      priority queues are not served as long as there are higher priority
      queues.  Among queues in the same class the bandwidth is distributed
      in proportion to the weight of each queue. A very thin extra bandwidth
      is however guaranteed to the Idle class, to prevent it from starving.

Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it>
Signed-off-by: Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@gmail.com>
block: fiops ioscheduler core

FIOPS (Fair IOPS) ioscheduler is IOPS based ioscheduler, so only targets
for drive without I/O seek. It's quite similar like CFQ, but the dispatch
decision is made according to IOPS instead of slice.

The algorithm is simple. Drive has a service tree, and each task lives in
the tree. The key into the tree is called vios (virtual I/O). Every request
has vios, which is calculated according to its ioprio, request size and so
on. Task's vios is the sum of vios of all requests it dispatches. FIOPS
always selects task with minimum vios in the service tree and let the task
dispatch request. The dispatched request's vios is then added to the task's
vios and the task is repositioned in the sevice tree.

Unlike CFQ, FIOPS doesn't have separate sync/async queues, because with I/O
less writeback, usually a task can only dispatch either sync or async requests.
Bias read or write request can still be done with read/write scale.

One issue is if workload iodepth is lower than drive queue_depth, IOPS
share of a task might not be strictly according to its priority, request
Bias read or write request can still be done with read/write scale.

One issue is if workload iodepth is lower than drive queue_depth, IOPS
share of a task might not be strictly according to its priority, request
size and so on. In this case, the drive is in idle actually. Solving the
problem need make drive idle, so impact performance. I believe CFQ isn't
completely fair between tasks in such case too.

Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>

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