[LINARO] workqueues: Introduce new flag WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT for power oriented workqueues

Adapted for 3.4 from lsk-v3.10

Workqueues can be performance or power-oriented. Currently, most workqueues are
bound to the CPU they were created on. This gives good performance (due to cache
effects) at the cost of potentially waking up otherwise idle cores (Idle from
scheduler's perspective. Which may or may not be physically idle) just to
process some work. To save power, we can allow the work to be rescheduled on a
core that is already awake.

Workqueues created with the WQ_UNBOUND flag will allow some power savings.
However, we don't change the default behaviour of the system.  To enable
power-saving behaviour, a new config option CONFIG_WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT needs to
be turned on. This option can also be overridden by the
workqueue.power_efficient boot parameter.

tj: Updated config description and comments.  Renamed
    CONFIG_WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT to CONFIG_WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT_DEFAULT.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
(cherry picked from commit cee22a15052faa817e3ec8985a28154d3fabc7aa)
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Luis Cruz <ljc2491@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	kernel/workqueue.c

Conflicts:
	kernel/workqueue.c

Conflicts:
	include/linux/workqueue.h
	kernel/workqueue.c

Conflicts:
	include/linux/workqueue.h

Conflicts:
	kernel/workqueue.c
battery opti
[LINARO] workqueue: Add system wide power_efficient workqueues

Adapted for 3.4 from lsk-v3.10

This patch adds system wide workqueues aligned towards power saving. This is
done by allocating them with WQ_UNBOUND flag if 'wq_power_efficient' is set to
'true'.

tj: updated comments a bit.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
(cherry picked from commit 0668106ca3865ba945e155097fb042bf66d364d3)
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Luis Cruz <ljc2491@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	include/linux/workqueue.h
ZEN pt 2
DTS: drop down more i2c freqs to 19.2 MhZ
block: disable add_random for more performance on SSD's
ext4: speed up truncate/unlink by not using bforget() unless needed

Do not iterate over data blocks scanning for bh's to forget as they're
never exist. This improves time taken by unlink / truncate syscall.
Tested by continuously truncating file that is being written by dd.
Another test is rm -rf of linux tree while tar unpacks it. With
ordered data mode condition unlikely(!tbh) was always met in
ext4_free_blocks. With journal data mode tbh was found only few times,
so optimisation is also possible.

Unlinking fallocated 60G file after doing sync && echo 3 >
/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches && time rm --help

X86 before (linux 3.6-rc4):
real    0m2.710s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m1.530s

X86 after:
real    0m0.644s
user    0m0.003s
sys     0m0.060s

MIPS before (linux 2.6.37):
real    0m 4.93s
user    0m 0.00s
sys     0m 4.61s

MIPS after:
real    0m 0.16s
user    0m 0.00s
sys     0m 0.06s

Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Andrey Sidorov <qrxd43@motorola.com>
Signed-off-by: franciscofranco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	fs/ext4/extents.c
sched: Fix clear NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK

I have faced a sequence where the Idle Load Balance was sometime not
triggered for a while on my platform, in the following scenario:

 CPU 0 and CPU 1 are running tasks and CPU 2 is idle

 CPU 1 kicks the Idle Load Balance
 CPU 1 selects CPU 2 as the new Idle Load Balancer
 CPU 2 sets NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK for CPU 2
 CPU 2 sends a reschedule IPI to CPU 2

 While CPU 3 wakes up, CPU 0 or CPU 1 migrates a waking up task A on CPU 2

 CPU 2 finally wakes up, runs task A and discards the Idle Load Balance
       task A quickly goes back to sleep (before a tick occurs on CPU 2)
 CPU 2 goes back to idle with NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK set

Whenever CPU 2 will be selected as the ILB, no reschedule IPI will be sent
because NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK is already set and no Idle Load Balance will be
performed.

We must wait for the sched softirq to be raised on CPU 2 thanks to another
part the kernel to come back to clear NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK.

The proposed solution clears NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK in schedule_ipi if
we can't raise the sched_softirq for the Idle Load Balance.

Change since V1:

- move the clear of NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK in got_nohz_idle_kick if the ILB
  can't run on this CPU (as suggested by Peter)

Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1370419991-13870-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Git-commit: 873b4c65b519fd769940eb281f77848227d4e5c1
Git-repo: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
[smuckle@codeaurora.org: minor merge resolution for 3.4 in scheduler_ipi()]
Signed-off-by: Steve Muckle <smuckle@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: flar2 <asegaert@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	kernel/sched/core.c
ARM: kernel: update __cpu_disable to use cache LoUIS maintenance API

When a CPU is hotplugged out caches that reside in its power domain
lose their contents and so must be cleaned to the next memory level.

Currently, __cpu_disable calls flush_cache_all() that for new generation
processor like A15/A7 ends up cleaning and invalidating all cache levels
up to Level of Coherency, which includes the unified L2.

This ends up being a waste of cycles since the L2 cache contents are not
lost on power down.

This patch updates __cpu_disable to use the new LoUIS API cache operations.

Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Tested-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
ASoC: pcm: Use the power efficient workqueue for delayed powerdown

Adapted for 3.4 from lsk-v3.10

There is no need to use a normal per-CPU workqueue for delayed power downs
as they're not timing or performance critical and waking up a core for them
would defeat some of the point.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: franciscofranco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>