cpufreq: cpu-boost: we can hit a small performance loss by not queuing input works less than 150ms apart when our default input work duration is only 40ms, so use that 40ms as a magic value instead of the 150ms minimum interval.

Signed-off-by: franciscofranco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>
vfs: fix bad hashing of dentries

Josef Bacik found a performance regression between 3.2 and 3.10 and
narrowed it down to commit bfcfaa77bdf0 ("vfs: use 'unsigned long'
accesses for dcache name comparison and hashing"). He reports:

 "The test case is essentially

      for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
              mkdir("a$i");

  On xfs on a fio card this goes at about 20k dir/sec with 3.2, and 12k
  dir/sec with 3.10.  This is because we spend waaaaay more time in
  __d_lookup on 3.10 than in 3.2.

  The new hashing function for strings is suboptimal for <
  sizeof(unsigned long) string names (and hell even > sizeof(unsigned
  long) string names that I've tested).  I broke out the old hashing
  function and the new one into a userspace helper to get real numbers
  and this is what I'm getting:

      Old hash table had 1000000 entries, 0 dupes, 0 max dupes
      New hash table had 12628 entries, 987372 dupes, 900 max dupes
      We had 11400 buckets with a p50 of 30 dupes, p90 of 240 dupes, p99 of 567 dupes for the new hash

  My test does the hash, and then does the d_hash into a integer pointer
  array the same size as the dentry hash table on my system, and then
  just increments the value at the address we got to see how many
  entries we overlap with.

  As you can see the old hash function ended up with all 1 million
  entries in their own bucket, whereas the new one they are only
  distributed among ~12.5k buckets, which is why we're using so much
  more CPU in __d_lookup".

The reason for this hash regression is two-fold:

 - On 64-bit architectures the down-mixing of the original 64-bit
   word-at-a-time hash into the final 32-bit hash value is very
   simplistic and suboptimal, and just adds the two 32-bit parts
   together.

   In particular, because there is no bit shuffling and the mixing
   boundary is also a byte boundary, similar character patterns in the
   low and high word easily end up just canceling each other out.

 - the old byte-at-a-time hash mixed each byte into the final hash as it
   hashed the path component name, resulting in the low bits of the hash
   generally being a good source of hash data.  That is not true for the
   word-at-a-time case, and the hash data is distributed among all the
   bits.

The fix is the same in both cases: do a better job of mixing the bits up
and using as much of the hash data as possible.  We already have the
"hash_32|64()" functions to do that.

Reported-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
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>
Signed-off-by: franciscofranco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>