Current implementation of unfreeze_partials() is so complicated,
but benefit from it is insignificant. In addition many code in
do {} while loop have a bad influence to a fail rate of cmpxchg_double_slab.
Under current implementation which test status of cpu partial slab
and acquire list_lock in do {} while loop,
we don't need to acquire a list_lock and gain a little benefit
when front of the cpu partial slab is to be discarded, but this is a rare case.
In case that add_partial is performed and cmpxchg_double_slab is failed,
remove_partial should be called case by case.

I think that these are disadvantages of current implementation,
so I do refactoring unfreeze_partials().

Minimizing code in do {} while loop introduce a reduced fail rate
of cmpxchg_double_slab. Below is output of 'slabinfo -r kmalloc-256'
when './perf stat -r 33 hackbench 50 process 4000 > /dev/null' is done.

** before **
Cmpxchg_double Looping
------------------------
Locked Cmpxchg Double redos   182685
Unlocked Cmpxchg Double redos 0

** after **
Cmpxchg_double Looping
------------------------
Locked Cmpxchg Double redos   177995
Unlocked Cmpxchg Double redos 1

We can see cmpxchg_double_slab fail rate is improved slightly.

Bolow is output of './perf stat -r 30 hackbench 50 process 4000 > /dev/null'.

** before **
 Performance counter stats for './hackbench 50 process 4000' (30 runs):

     108517.190463 task-clock                #    7.926 CPUs utilized            ( +-  0.24% )
         2,919,550 context-switches          #    0.027 M/sec                    ( +-  3.07% )
           100,774 CPU-migrations            #    0.929 K/sec                    ( +-  4.72% )
           124,201 page-faults               #    0.001 M/sec                    ( +-  0.15% )
   401,500,234,387 cycles                    #    3.700 GHz                      ( +-  0.24% )
   <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend
   <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend
   250,576,913,354 instructions              #    0.62  insns per cycle          ( +-  0.13% )
    45,934,956,860 branches                  #  423.297 M/sec                    ( +-  0.14% )
       188,219,787 branch-misses             #    0.41% of all branches          ( +-  0.56% )

      13.691837307 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.24% )

** after **
 Performance counter stats for './hackbench 50 process 4000' (30 runs):

     107784.479767 task-clock                #    7.928 CPUs utilized            ( +-  0.22% )
         2,834,781 context-switches          #    0.026 M/sec                    ( +-  2.33% )
            93,083 CPU-migrations            #    0.864 K/sec                    ( +-  3.45% )
           123,967 page-faults               #    0.001 M/sec                    ( +-  0.15% )
   398,781,421,836 cycles                    #    3.700 GHz                      ( +-  0.22% )
   <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend
   <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend
   250,189,160,419 instructions              #    0.63  insns per cycle          ( +-  0.09% )
    45,855,370,128 branches                  #  425.436 M/sec                    ( +-  0.10% )
       169,881,248 branch-misses             #    0.37% of all branches          ( +-  0.43% )

      13.596272341 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.22% )

No regression is found, but rather we can see slightly better result.
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>