x86/resctrl: Separate arch and fs resctrl locks

resctrl has one mutex that is taken by the architecture-specific code, and the
filesystem parts. The two interact via cpuhp, where the architecture code
updates the domain list. Filesystem handlers that walk the domains list should
not run concurrently with the cpuhp callback modifying the list.

Exposing a lock from the filesystem code means the interface is not cleanly
defined, and creates the possibility of cross-architecture lock ordering
headaches. The interaction only exists so that certain filesystem paths are
serialised against CPU hotplug. The CPU hotplug code already has a mechanism to
do this using cpus_read_lock().

MPAM's monitors have an overflow interrupt, so it needs to be possible to walk
the domains list in irq context. RCU is ideal for this, but some paths need to
be able to sleep to allocate memory.

Because resctrl_{on,off}line_cpu() take the rdtgroup_mutex as part of a cpuhp
callback, cpus_read_lock() must always be taken first.
rdtgroup_schemata_write() already does this.

Most of the filesystem code's domain list walkers are currently protected by
the rdtgroup_mutex taken in rdtgroup_kn_lock_live().  The exceptions are
rdt_bit_usage_show() and the mon_config helpers which take the lock directly.

Make the domain list protected by RCU. An architecture-specific lock prevents
concurrent writers. rdt_bit_usage_show() could walk the domain list using RCU,
but to keep all the filesystem operations the same, this is changed to call
cpus_read_lock().  The mon_config helpers send multiple IPIs, take the
cpus_read_lock() in these cases.

The other filesystem list walkers need to be able to sleep.  Add
cpus_read_lock() to rdtgroup_kn_lock_live() so that the cpuhp callbacks can't
be invoked when file system operations are occurring.

Add lockdep_assert_cpus_held() in the cases where the rdtgroup_kn_lock_live()
call isn't obvious.

Resctrl's domain online/offline calls now need to take the rdtgroup_mutex
themselves.

  [ bp: Fold in a build fix: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87zfvwieli.ffs@tglx ]

Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@alien8.de>
Reviewed-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>
Tested-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@fujitsu.com>
Tested-by: Peter Newman <peternewman@google.com>
Tested-by: Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>
Tested-by: Carl Worth <carl@os.amperecomputing.com> # arm64
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240213184438.16675-25-james.morse@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@alien8.de>