tmpfs: fix mempolicy object leaks
This patch fixes several mempolicy leaks in the tmpfs mount logic.
These leaks are slow - on the order of one object leaked per mount
attempt.

Leak 1 (umount doesn't free mpol allocated in mount):
    while true; do
        mount -t tmpfs -o mpol=interleave,size=100M nodev /mnt
        umount /mnt
    done

Leak 2 (errors parsing remount options will leak mpol):
    mount -t tmpfs -o size=100M nodev /mnt
    while true; do
        mount -o remount,mpol=interleave,size=x /mnt 2> /dev/null
    done
    umount /mnt

Leak 3 (multiple mpol per mount leak mpol):
    while true; do
        mount -t tmpfs -o mpol=interleave,mpol=interleave,size=100M nodev /mnt
        umount /mnt
    done

This patch fixes all of the above.  I could have broken the patch into
three pieces but is seemed easier to review as one.

Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
modified for Mako kernel from LKML reference

Signed-off-by: faux123 <reioux@gmail.com>
regulator work from ch33kybutt
reduve nfc wakelock time
ARM: mm: Flush only CPU local cache instead of all cache levels.

The ARMv7 processor setup functions clean and invalidates the
cpu cache before enabling MMU. The intention here is to start
with clean CPU local cache.

But on architectures like Cortex-[A15/A8], this code will end
up flushing the L2 cache as well which undesirable and incorrect.
The setup functions are used in CPU hotplug scenario's too and
hence flushing all cache levels should be avoided.

Fix this code by restricting the cache flush to local cpu
cache or L1.

Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
epoll: trim epitem by one cache line

It is common for epoll users to have thousands of epitems, so saving a
cache line on every allocation leads to large memory savings.

Since epitem allocations are cache-aligned, reducing sizeof(struct
epitem) from 136 bytes to 128 bytes will allow it to squeeze under a
cache line boundary on x86_64.

Via /sys/kernel/slab/eventpoll_epi, I see the following changes on my
x86_64 Core2 Duo (which has 64-byte cache alignment):

	object_size  :  192 => 128
	objs_per_slab:   21 =>  32

Also, add a BUILD_BUG_ON() to check for future accidental breakage.

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: use __packed, for all architectures]
Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: poondog <markj338@gmail.com>
mm: vmscan: clear kswapd's special reclaim powers before exiting

commit 71abdc15adf8c702a1dd535f8e30df50758848d2 upstream.

When kswapd exits, it can end up taking locks that were previously held
by allocating tasks while they waited for reclaim.  Lockdep currently
warns about this:

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 06:06:34PM +0800, Gu Zheng wrote:
>  inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-R} usage.
>  kswapd2/1151 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
>   (&sig->group_rwsem){+++++?}, at: exit_signals+0x24/0x130
>  {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} state was registered at:
>     mark_held_locks+0xb9/0x140
>     lockdep_trace_alloc+0x7a/0xe0
>     kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x37/0x240
>     flex_array_alloc+0x99/0x1a0
>     cgroup_attach_task+0x63/0x430
>     attach_task_by_pid+0x210/0x280
>     cgroup_procs_write+0x16/0x20
>     cgroup_file_write+0x120/0x2c0
>     vfs_write+0xc0/0x1f0
>     SyS_write+0x4c/0xa0
>     tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
>  irq event stamp: 49
>  hardirqs last  enabled at (49):  _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x36/0x70
>  hardirqs last disabled at (48):  _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x2b/0xa0
>  softirqs last  enabled at (0):  copy_process.part.24+0x627/0x15f0
>  softirqs last disabled at (0):            (null)
>
>  other info that might help us debug this:
>   Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
>         CPU0
>         ----
>    lock(&sig->group_rwsem);
>    <Interrupt>
>      lock(&sig->group_rwsem);
>
>   *** DEADLOCK ***
>
>  no locks held by kswapd2/1151.
>
>  stack backtrace:
>  CPU: 30 PID: 1151 Comm: kswapd2 Not tainted 3.10.39+ #4
>  Call Trace:
>    dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>    print_usage_bug+0x1f7/0x208
>    mark_lock+0x21d/0x2a0
>    __lock_acquire+0x52a/0xb60
>    lock_acquire+0xa2/0x140
>    down_read+0x51/0xa0
>    exit_signals+0x24/0x130
>    do_exit+0xb5/0xa50
>    kthread+0xdb/0x100
>    ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0

This is because the kswapd thread is still marked as a reclaimer at the
time of exit.  But because it is exiting, nobody is actually waiting on
it to make reclaim progress anymore, and it's nothing but a regular
thread at this point.  Be tidy and strip it of all its powers
(PF_MEMALLOC, PF_SWAPWRITE, PF_KSWAPD, and the lockdep reclaim state)
before returning from the thread function.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Reported-by: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
mm: vmscan: If kswapd has been running too long, allow it to sleep

Under constant allocation pressure, kswapd can be in the situation where
sleeping_prematurely() will always return true even if kswapd has been
running a long time. Check if kswapd needs to be scheduled.

Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
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>

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/include/asm/Kbuild

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/include/asm/Kbuild

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/include/asm/Kbuild

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/include/asm/Kbuild
ARM: 7006/1: Migrate to asm-generic wrapper support

With d8ecc5c (kbuild: asm-generic support, 2011-04-27) we can
remove a handful of asm-generic wrappers in ARM code. Since the
generic version of sizes.h doesn't contain SZ_48M, we replace
the 4 users of SZ_48M with the equivalent SZ_32M + SZ_16M.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Imre Kaloz <kaloz@openwrt.org>
Acked-by: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>
Cc: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/include/asm/Kbuild
	arch/arm/include/asm/percpu.h
	arch/arm/include/asm/sections.h
ARM: 7491/1: use generic version of identical asm headers

Inspired by the AArgh64 claim that it should be separate from ARM and one
reason was being able to use more asm-generic headers. Doing a diff of
arch/arm/include/asm and include/asm-generic there are numerous asm
headers which are functionally identical to their asm-generic counterparts.
Delete the ARM version and use the generic ones.

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>
oops we need you