m7: Linux 3.4.95

The following commit from upstream wasn't included:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/?h=linux-3.4.y&id=3f8f4ae48f4023e1c53722b1dc1a7ab897cbca14


Change-Id: I030f99b027994bc23927a2b93c914827c40d1398
Signed-off-by: doc <doc.divxm@gmail.com>
tick: Upstream fixes

 * Addresses the issue of timers being scheduled on offline CPUs.

tick: Don't invoke tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() if the cpu is offline

commit 5b39939a4 (nohz: Move ts->idle_calls incrementation into strict
idle logic) moved code out of tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() and missed
to bail out when the cpu is offline. That's causing subsequent
failures as an offline CPU is supposed to die and not to fiddle with
nohz magic.

Return false in can_stop_idle_tick() if the cpu is offline.

Reported-and-tested-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Reported-and-tested-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LFD.2.02.1305132138160.2863@ionos
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

timers: Consolidate base->next_timer update

Another bunch of mindlessly copied code. All callers of
internal_add_timer() except the recascading code updates
base->next_timer.

Move this into internal_add_timer() and let the cascading code call
__internal_add_timer().

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120525214819.189946224@linutronix.de

timers: Create detach_if_pending() and use it

Most callers of detach_timer() have the same pattern around
them. Check whether the timer is pending and eventually updating
base->next_timer.

Create detach_if_pending() and replace the duplicated code.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120525214819.131246037@linutronix.de

timers: Add accounting of non deferrable timers

The code in get_next_timer_interrupt() is suboptimal as it has to run
through the cascade to find the next expiring timer. On a completely
idle core we should only do that when there is an active timer
enqueued and base->next_timer does not give us a fast answer.

Add accounting of the active timers to the now consolidated
attach/detach code. I deliberately avoided sanity checks because the
code is fully symetric and any fiddling with timers w/o using the API
functions will lead to cute explosions anyway. ulong is big enough
even on 32bit and if we really run into the situation to have more
than 1<<32 timers enqueued there, then we are definitely not in a
state to go idle and run through that code.

This allows us to fix another shortcoming of get_next_timer_interrupt().

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120525214819.236377028@linutronix.de

timers: Improve get_next_timer_interrupt()

Gilad reported at

 http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1336056962-10465-2-git-send-email-gilad@benyossef.com

"Current timer code fails to correctly return a value meaning that
 there is no future timer event, with the result that the timer keeps
 getting re-armed in HZ one shot mode even when we could turn it off,
 generating unneeded interrupts.

 What is happening is that when __next_timer_interrupt() wishes
 to return a value that signifies "there is no future timer
 event", it returns (base->timer_jiffies + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA).

 However, the code in tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(), which called
 __next_timer_interrupt() via get_next_timer_interrupt(),
 compares the return value to (last_jiffies + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA)
 to see if the timer needs to be re-armed.

 base->timer_jiffies != last_jiffies and so tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick()
 interperts the return value as indication that there is a distant
 future event 12 days from now and programs the timer to fire next
 after KTIME_MAX nsecs instead of avoiding to arm it. This ends up
 causing a needless interrupt once every KTIME_MAX nsecs."

Fix this by using the new active timer accounting. This avoids scans
when no active timer is enqueued completely, so we don't have to rely
on base->timer_next and base->timer_jiffies anymore.

Conflicts:
	kernel/timer.c

Change-Id: Ie3dc57fb47f05bb46ad7bbf5e99c9084144c279a
Reported-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120525214819.317535385@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
time: RCU permitted to stop idle entry via softirq

The can_stop_idle_tick() function complains if a softirq vector is
raised too late in the idle-entry process, presumably in order to
prevent dangling softirq invocations from being delayed across the
full idle period, which might be indefinitely long -- and if softirq
was asserted any later than the call to this function, such a delay
might well happen.

However, RCU needs to be able to use softirq to stop idle entry in
order to be able to drain RCU callbacks from the current CPU, which in
turn enables faster entry into dyntick-idle mode, which in turn reduces
power consumption.  Because RCU takes this action at a well-defined
point in the idle-entry path, it is safe for RCU to take this approach.

This commit therefore silences the error message that is sometimes
produced when the going-idle CPU suddenly finds that it has an RCU_SOFTIRQ
to process.  The error message will continue to be issued for other
softirq vectors.

Conflicts:
	include/linux/interrupt.h

Change-Id: I8685f15be107a26c3f20498d8b8ef5b75bcc6615
Reported-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>