3.4.0 -> 3.4.85

Bring up to latest linux stable tag.

Signed-off-by: Carlo Savignano <stevewatersy@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: franciscofranco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_ibs.c
	arch/x86/kernel/cpu/scattered.c
	drivers/char/random.c
	include/trace/events/random.h
	kernel/events/core.c
	kernel/sched/core.c
	kernel/workqueue.c
	mm/slab.c
	mm/slub.c
msm: memutils: memcpy, memmove, copy_page optimization

Preload farther to take advantage of the memory bus, and assume
64-byte cache lines.  Unroll some pairs of ldm/stm as well, for
unexplainable reasons.

Future enhancements should include,

- #define for how far to preload, possibly defined separately for
  memcpy, copy_*_user
- Tuning for misaligned buffers
- Tuning for memmove
- Tuning for small buffers
- Understanding mechanism behind ldm/stm unroll causing some gains
  in copy_to_user

BASELINE (msm8960pro):
======================================================================
memcpy 1000MB at 5MB       : took 808850 usec, bandwidth 1236.236 MB/s
copy_to_user 1000MB at 5MB : took 810071 usec, bandwidth 1234.234 MB/s
copy_from_user 1000MB at 5M: took 942926 usec, bandwidth 1060.060 MB/s
memmove 1000GB at 5MB      : took 848588 usec, bandwidth 1178.178 MB/s
copy_to_user 1000GB at 4kB : took 847916 usec, bandwidth 1179.179 MB/s
copy_from_user 1000GB at 4k: took 935113 usec, bandwidth 1069.069 MB/s
copy_page 1000GB at 4kB    : took 779459 usec, bandwidth 1282.282 MB/s

THIS PATCH:
======================================================================
memcpy 1000MB at 5MB       : took 346223 usec, bandwidth 2888.888 MB/s
copy_to_user 1000MB at 5MB : took 348084 usec, bandwidth 2872.872 MB/s
copy_from_user 1000MB at 5M: took 348176 usec, bandwidth 2872.872 MB/s
memmove 1000GB at 5MB      : took 348267 usec, bandwidth 2871.871 MB/s
copy_to_user 1000GB at 4kB : took 377018 usec, bandwidth 2652.652 MB/s
copy_from_user 1000GB at 4k: took 371829 usec, bandwidth 2689.689 MB/s
copy_page 1000GB at 4kB    : took 383763 usec, bandwidth 2605.605 MB/s

Change-Id: I843fe77192d61ce35a81e75d76fc09f0a472e98a
Signed-off-by: Chris Fries <C.Fries@motorola.com>

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/mach-msm/Kconfig
	arch/arm/mach-msm/Makefile

msm: memutils: memcpy, memmove Fix makefile issue

msm: memutils: memcpy, memmove optimization

1. To fit 8x26 64-bytes cache line size, we change preload steps as 64Bytes.
2. According to tune result, change preload distance as 5 cache lines.
3. According to tune result, re-arrange the ld/str order as back-to-back
   for copy_from_user.

The markable improvement:
	memcpy : 5%
	copy_to_user : 9%
	copy_from_user : 13%
	memmove : 37%

Raw data is as below:

BASELINE:
	memcpy 1000MB at 5MB       : took 1547098 usec, bandwidth 646.646 MB/s
	copy_to_user 1000MB at 5MB : took 1704308 usec, bandwidth 586.586 MB/s
	copy_from_user 1000MB at 5M: took 1777090 usec, bandwidth 562.562 MB/s
	memmove 1000GB at 5MB      : took 1066205 usec, bandwidth 937.937 MB/s
	copy_to_user 1000GB at 4kB : took 1774866 usec, bandwidth 563.563 MB/s
	copy_from_user 1000GB at 4k: took 1797654 usec, bandwidth 556.556 MB/s
	copy_page 1000GB at 4kB    : took 1644606 usec, bandwidth 608.608 MB/s
	memmove 1000GB at 4kB      : took 1236227 usec, bandwidth 808.808 MB/s

THIS PATCH:
	memcpy 1000MB at 5MB       : took 1475835 usec, bandwidth 677.677 MB/s
	copy_to_user 1000MB at 5MB : took 1559060 usec, bandwidth 641.641 MB/s
	copy_from_user 1000MB at 5M: took 1561603 usec, bandwidth 640.640 MB/s
	memmove 1000GB at 5MB      : took 861664 usec, bandwidth 1160.160 MB/s
	copy_to_user 1000GB at 4kB : took 1673501 usec, bandwidth 597.597 MB/s
	copy_from_user 1000GB at 4k: took 1674006 usec, bandwidth 597.597 MB/s
	copy_page 1000GB at 4kB    : took 1691358 usec, bandwidth 591.591 MB/s
	memmove 1000GB at 4kB      : took 882985 usec, bandwidth 1132.132 MB/s

Change-Id: I83bec3b7a9dd9cd88890eaa7ec423363e230a651
Signed-off-by: Hong-Mei Li <a21834@motorola.com>
Reviewed-on: http://gerrit.pcs.mot.com/550383
SLT-Approved: Slta Waiver <sltawvr@motorola.com>
Tested-by: Jira Key <jirakey@motorola.com>
Reviewed-by: Klocwork kwcheck <klocwork-kwcheck@sourceforge.mot.com>
Reviewed-by: Check Patch <CHEKPACH@motorola.com>
Reviewed-by: Yi-Wei Zhao <gbjc64@motorola.com>
Submit-Approved: Jira Key <jirakey@motorola.com>
Config: Add MOTOROLA MEMUTILS OPT
block: fiops ioscheduler sqaushed

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
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>

block: fiops read/write request scale

read/write speed of Flash based storage usually is different. For example,
in my SSD maxium thoughput of read is about 3 times faster than that of
write. Add a scale to differenate read and write. Also add a tunable, so
user can assign different scale for read and write.

By default, the scale is 1:1, which means the scale is a noop.

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

block: fiops sync/async scale

CFQ gives 2.5 times more share to sync workload. This matches CFQ.

Note this is different with the read/write scale. We have 3 types of
requests:
1. read
2. sync write
3. write
CFQ doesn't differentitate type 1 and 2, but request cost of 1 and 2
are usually different for flash based storage. So we have both sync/async
and read/write scale here.

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

block: fiops add ioprio support

Add CFQ-like ioprio support. Priority A will get 20% more share than priority
A+1, which matches CFQ.

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

block: fiops preserve vios key for deep queue depth workload

If the task has running request, even it's added into service tree newly,
we preserve its vios key, so it will not lost its share. This should work
for task driving big queue depth. For single depth task, there is no approach
to preserve its vios key.

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

block: fiops bias sync workload

If there are async requests running, delay async workload. Otherwise
async workload (usually very deep iodepth) will use all queue iodepth
and later sync requests will get long delayed. The idea is from CFQ.

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

block: fiops add some trace information

Add some trace information, which is helpful when I do debugging.

Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
block: scheduler: add SIO

block: scheduler: tuning SIO based on Cylon 801