This is a cherry-pick from of a CL from sc-v2 adding a safety mechanism
for lost buffers. The original CL probably should have been merged in to master,
and I can't relate to my thought process adding DO NOT MERGE on the
original CL. Recently we have started seeing some of these ANRs again.
Well actually we have seen them continuously, but most have been due to
GPU hangs. Recently we started seeing some which aren't due to GPU
hangs. We found one trace, which showed the sort of situation described
below, which lead me to realizing this code was never merged in to
master. It shoud be relatively safe since we released it on sc-v2.

Perfetto telemetry shows a cluster where a transactionComplete is
arriving but an earlier releaseBufferCallback has never arrived.
This leads to blocking and ANRs. We try to work around this by
generating a fake release buffer callback for previous buffers when we
receive a TransactionCompleteCallback. How can we know this is safe? The
criteria to safely release buffers are as follows:
	Condition 1. SurfaceFlinger does not plan to use the buffer
	Condition 2. Have the acquire fence (or a later signalling fence)if
	dropped, have the HWC release fence if presented.
Now lets break down cases where the transaction complete callback
arrives before the release buffer callback. All release buffer callbacks
fall in to two categories:
	Category 1. In band with the complete callback. In which case the client
	library in SurfaceComposerClient always sends release callbacks
	first.
	Category 2. Out of band, e.g. from setBuffer or merge when dropping buffers

In category 2 there are two scenarios:
	Scenario 1: Release callback was never going to arrive (bug)
	Scenario 2. Release callback descheduled, e.g.
		a. Transaction is filled with buffer and held in VRI/WM/SysUI
		b. A second transaction with buffer is merged in, the release
		buffer callback is emitted but not scheduled (async binder)
		c. The merged transaction is applied
		d. SurfaceFlinger processes a frame and emits the transaction
		complete callback
		e. The transaction complete callback is scheduled before the
		release callback is ever scheduled (since the 1 way binders are
		from different processes).
In both scenarios, we can satisfy Conditions 1 and 2, because the HWC
present fence is a later signalling fence than the acquire fence which
the out of band callback will pass. While we may block extra on this
fence. We will be safe by condition 2. Receiving the transaction
complete callback should indicate condition 1 is satisfied.

In category 1 there should only be a single scenario, the release buffer
callback for frame N-1 is emitted immediately before the transaction
callback for frame N, and so if it hasn't come at that time (and isn't
out of band/scheduled e.g. category 2) then it will never come. We can
further break this down in to two scenarios:
	1. stat.previousReleaseFence is set correctly. This is the
	expected case. In this case, this is the same fence we would
	receive from the release buffer callback, and so we can satisfy
	condition 1 and 2 and safely release.
	2. stat.previousReleaseFence is not set correctly. There is no
	known reason for this to happen, but there is also no known
	reason why we would receive a complete callback without the
	corresponding release, and so we have to explore the option as
	a potential risk/behavior change from the change.
Hypothetically in category 1 case 2 we could experience some tearing.
In category 1 we are currently experiencing ANR, and so the tradeoff
is a risk of tearing vs a certainty of ANR. To tear the following would
have to happen:
	1. Enter the case where we previously ANRed
	2. Enter the subcase where the release fence is not set
	correctly
	3. Be scheduled very fast on the client side, in practicality
	HWC present has already returned and the fence should be firing
	very soon
	4. The previous frame not be GL comp, in which case we were
	already done with the buffer and don't need the fence anyway.
Conditions 2 and 3 should already make the occurence of tearing much
lower than the occurence of ANRs. Furthermore 100% of observed ANRs
were during GL comp (rotation animation) and so the telemetry indicates
the risk of introducing tearing is very low.

To review, we have shown that we can break down the side effects from the change in
to two buckets (category 1, and category 2). In category 2, the possible negative side
effect is to use too late of a fence. However this is still safe, and should
be exceedingly rare. In category 1 we have shown that there are two scenarios,
and in one of these scenarios we can experience tearing. We have furthermore argued
that the risk of tearing should be exceedingly low even in this scenario,
while the risk of ANR in this scenario was nearly 100%.

Bug: 247246160
Bug: 244218818
Test: Existing tests pass
Change-Id: I757ed132ac076aa811df816e04a68f57b38e47e7