mm: sl[uo]b: fix misleading comments

On x86, SLUB creates and handles <=8192-byte allocations internally.
It passes larger ones up to the allocator.  Saying "up to order 2" is,
at best, ambiguous.  Is that order-1?  Or (order-2 bytes)?  Make
it more clear.

SLOB commits a similar sin.  It *handles* page-size requests, but the
comment says that it passes up "all page size and larger requests".

SLOB also swaps around the order of the very-similarly-named
KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH and KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX #defines.  Make it
consistent with the order of the other two allocators.

Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
mm: slub: work around unneeded lockdep warning

The slub code does some setup during early boot in
early_kmem_cache_node_alloc() with some local data.  There is no
possible way that another CPU can see this data, so the slub code
doesn't unnecessarily lock it.  However, some new lockdep asserts
check to make sure that add_partial() _always_ has the list_lock
held.

Just add the locking, even though it is technically unnecessary.

Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>