sched/nohz: Fix rq->cpu_load[] calculations

While investigating why the load-balancer did funny I found that the
rq->cpu_load[] tables were completely screwy.. a bit more digging
revealed that the updates that got through were missing ticks followed
by a catchup of 2 ticks.

The catchup assumes the cpu was idle during that time (since only nohz
can cause missed ticks and the machine is idle etc..) this means that
esp. the higher indices were significantly lower than they ought to
be.

The reason for this is that its not correct to compare against jiffies
on every jiffy on any other cpu than the cpu that updates jiffies.

This patch cludges around it by only doing the catch-up stuff from
nohz_idle_balance() and doing the regular stuff unconditionally from
the tick.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: pjt@google.com
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-tp4kj18xdd5aj4vvj0qg55s2@git.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
sched/nohz: Fix rq->cpu_load calculations some more

Follow up on commit 556061b00 ("sched/nohz: Fix rq->cpu_load[]
calculations") since while that fixed the busy case it regressed the
mostly idle case.

Add a callback from the nohz exit to also age the rq->cpu_load[]
array. This closes the hole where either there was no nohz load
balance pass during the nohz, or there was a 'significant' amount of
idle time between the last nohz balance and the nohz exit.

So we'll update unconditionally from the tick to not insert any
accidental 0 load periods while busy, and we try and catch up from
nohz idle balance and nohz exit. Both these are still prone to missing
a jiffy, but that has always been the case.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: pjt@google.com
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-kt0trz0apodbf84ucjfdbr1a@git.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
sched: Fix load avg vs cpu-hotplug

Rabik and Paul reported two different issues related to the same few
lines of code.

Rabik's issue is that the nr_uninterruptible migration code is wrong in
that he sees artifacts due to this (Rabik please do expand in more
detail).

Paul's issue is that this code as it stands relies on us using
stop_machine() for unplug, we all would like to remove this assumption
so that eventually we can remove this stop_machine() usage altogether.

The only reason we'd have to migrate nr_uninterruptible is so that we
could use for_each_online_cpu() loops in favour of
for_each_possible_cpu() loops, however since nr_uninterruptible() is the
only such loop and its using possible lets not bother at all.

The problem Rabik sees is (probably) caused by the fact that by
migrating nr_uninterruptible we screw rq->calc_load_active for both rqs
involved.

So don't bother with fancy migration schemes (meaning we now have to
keep using for_each_possible_cpu()) and instead fold any nr_active delta
after we migrate all tasks away to make sure we don't have any skewed
nr_active accounting.

Reported-by: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1345454817.23018.27.camel@twins
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
sched: LOAD_FREQ (4*HZ+61) avoids loadavg Moire

LOAD_FREQ is (5*HZ+1) to avoid high load average when idle:
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2007/10/3/328568

I suggest (4*HZ+61) for a better distribution.

With some seconds based load (like SSL heartbeats)
and LOAD_FREQ at (5*HZ+1) I see Moire patterns like inverse sawtooth,
since 2 or 3 probes hit the jobs (load increases quickly),
followed by several probes missing it.

A 4.61 sec interval gives optimal distribution over when within a
second a probe is taken, as .61 is close to golden ratio phi 1.618...
(test in http://ripke.com/goldenratio.c).

12*4.61 = 55.32 secs is still close to a minute,
and 13*4.61=59.93 is even closer than the current 12*5.01=60.12
(with exponents EXP_x adjusted to a ratio of 13 instead of 12).

Thanks to Klaus Ripke http://ripke.com/loadavg/moire
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/12/39