block : Zen I/O scheduler

Q: What is the zen I/O scheduler?
A: Well, the question that was asked above led me to an analysis of V(R ), deadline, and some others. I already knew, but realized "this is the main feature of V(R), but wait it has no benefit to us smartphone users." So I thought about adjusting the way V(R ) handled requests and how it dispatched them (I chose V(R ) because i'd rather not tinker with a scheduler thats official and widely supported). Then I was looking over it, and realized I might as well just write a new one I don't need any of this stuff. So I came up with something awfully similar to SIO, although its a bit simpler than SIO (closer to no-op) and works just slightly different.
- It's an FCFS (First come, first serve) based algorithm. It's not strictly FIFO. It does not do any sorting. It uses deadlines for fairness, and treats synchronous requests with priority over asynchronous ones. Other than that, pretty much the same as no-op.
kernel/power/powersuspend: new PM kernel driver for Android w/o early_suspend v1.2 (Yank555.lu)

- make kernel / userspace mode switchable

kernel/power/powersuspend: new PM kernel driver for Android w/o early_suspend v1.1 (Yank555.lu)

- make powersuspend not depend on a userspace initiator anymore, but use a hook in autosleep instead.

kernel/power/powersuspend: new PM kernel driver for Android w/o early_suspend (faux123)

Android early_suspend/late_resume PM kernel driver framework has been
deprecated by Google. This new powersuspend PM kernel driver is a replacement
for it and existing early_suspend drivers can be easily adapted to use this
new replacement driver

Signen-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
fs/dyn_sync_cntrl: dynamic sync control v1.5 (faux123)

The dynamic sync control interface uses new power_suspend interface

While screen is on, file sync is disabled
when screen is off, a file sync is called to flush all outstanding writes
and restore file sync operation as normal.

updated for 8974 kernels

Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>;

fs/dyn_sync_cntrl: keep dynamic sync control off by default (Yank555.lu)
block: fiops ioscheduler

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
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>

Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.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>
char-random: increase default entropy settings to (512,2048)
binfmt_elf.c: use get_random_int() to fix entropy depleting (Jeff Liu )

See http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1211.1/03767.html for details.