The code in get_next_timer_interrupt() is suboptimal as it has to run
through the cascade to find the next expiring timer. On a completely
idle core we should only do that when there is an active timer
enqueued and base->next_timer does not give us a fast answer.

Add accounting of the active timers to the now consolidated
attach/detach code. I deliberately avoided sanity checks because the
code is fully symetric and any fiddling with timers w/o using the API
functions will lead to cute explosions anyway. ulong is big enough
even on 32bit and if we really run into the situation to have more
than 1<<32 timers enqueued there, then we are definitely not in a
state to go idle and run through that code.

This allows us to fix another shortcoming of get_next_timer_interrupt().
Signed-off-by: NThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120525214819.236377028@linutronix.de