Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be
able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the
tree.  For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's
rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll
likely become available soon.  At the time this code was written the
rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of
magnitude slower than our home grown locking.

However now the opposite is the case.  There are a few problems with how
we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and
simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order.  This leads to some
suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly
contended cases.  The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also
have adaptive spinning that works relatively well.

The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the
benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the
lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep.

So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and
simply use a rw_semaphore for everything.  This makes the locking much
simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking
transitions.  The performance numbers vary depending on the workload,
because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention
on the btree.  However, on my test system which is an 80 core single
socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the
following results (with all debug options off):

  dbench 200 baseline
  Throughput 216.056 MB/sec  200 clients  200 procs  max_latency=1471.197 ms

  dbench 200 with patch
  Throughput 737.188 MB/sec  200 clients  200 procs  max_latency=714.346 ms

Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and
those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough
tasks to really stress the locking

  fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16

  baseline
    Average Files/sec:     160166.7
    p50 Files/sec:         165832
    p90 Files/sec:         123886
    p99 Files/sec:         123495

    real    3m26.527s
    user    2m19.223s
    sys     48m21.856s

  patched
    Average Files/sec:     164135.7
    p50 Files/sec:         171095
    p90 Files/sec:         122889
    p99 Files/sec:         113819

    real    3m29.660s
    user    2m19.990s
    sys     44m12.259s
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>