sched: reinitialize rq->next_balance when a CPU is hot-added

Reinitialize rq->next_balance when a CPU is hot-added.  Otherwise,
scheduler domain rebalancing may be skipped if rq->next_balance was
set to a future time when the CPU was last active, and the
newly-re-added CPU is in idle_balance().  As a result, the
newly-re-added CPU will remain idle with no tasks scheduled until the
softlockup watchdog runs - potentially 4 seconds later.  This can
waste energy and reduce performance.

This behavior can be observed in some SoC kernels, which use CPU
hotplug to dynamically remove and add CPUs in response to load.  In
one case that triggered this behavior,

0. the system started with all cores enabled, running multi-threaded
   CPU-bound code;

1. the system entered some single-threaded code;

2. a CPU went idle and was hot-removed;

3. the system started executing a multi-threaded CPU-bound task;

4. the CPU from event 2 was re-added, to respond to the load.

The time interval between events 2 and 4 was approximately 300
milliseconds.

Of course, ideally CPU hotplug would not be used in this manner,
but this patch does appear to fix a real bug.

Nvidia folks: this patch is submitted as at least a partial fix for
bug 1243368 ("[sched] Load-balancing not happening correctly after
cores brought online")

Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley <pwalmsley@nvidia.com>
Cc: Peter Boonstoppel <pboonstoppel@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-on: http://git-master/r/208927
Reviewed-by: Automatic_Commit_Validation_User
Reviewed-by: Peter Zu <pzu@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Boonstoppel <pboonstoppel@nvidia.com>
GVS: Gerrit_Virtual_Submit
Tested-by: Peter Zu <pzu@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Yu-Huan Hsu <yhsu@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
sched: Fix nohz_idle_balance()

On tickless systems, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.

The cpu_load of this CPU is updated before starting the load balance
of each other idle CPUs. We should instead update the cpu_load of
the balance_cpu.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1347509486-8688-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
sched: Improve balance_cpu() to consider other cpus in its group as target of (pinned) task

Current load balance scheme requires only one cpu in a
sched_group (balance_cpu) to look at other peer sched_groups for
imbalance and pull tasks towards itself from a busy cpu. Tasks
thus pulled by balance_cpu could later get picked up by cpus
that are in the same sched_group as that of balance_cpu.

This scheme however fails to pull tasks that are not allowed to
run on balance_cpu (but are allowed to run on other cpus in its
sched_group). That can affect fairness and in some worst case
scenarios cause starvation.

Consider a two core (2 threads/core) system running tasks as
below:

          Core0            Core1
         /     \          /     \
	C0     C1	 C2     C3
        |      |         |      |
        v      v         v      v
	F0     T1        F1     [idle]
			 T2

 F0 = SCHED_FIFO task (pinned to C0)
 F1 = SCHED_FIFO task (pinned to C2)
 T1 = SCHED_OTHER task (pinned to C1)
 T2 = SCHED_OTHER task (pinned to C1 and C2)

F1 could become a cpu hog, which will starve T2 unless C1 pulls
it. Between C0 and C1 however, C0 is required to look for
imbalance between cores, which will fail to pull T2 towards
Core0. T2 will starve eternally in this case. The same scenario
can arise in presence of non-rt tasks as well (say we replace F1
with high irq load).

We tackle this problem by having balance_cpu move pinned tasks
to one of its sibling cpus (where they can run). We first check
if load balance goal can be met by ignoring pinned tasks,
failing which we retry move_tasks() with a new env->dst_cpu.

This patch modifies load balance semantics on who can move load
towards a given cpu in a given sched_domain.

Before this patch, a given_cpu or a ilb_cpu acting on behalf of
an idle given_cpu is responsible for moving load to given_cpu.

With this patch applied, balance_cpu can in addition decide on
moving some load to a given_cpu.

There is a remote possibility that excess load could get moved
as a result of this (balance_cpu and given_cpu/ilb_cpu deciding
*independently* and at *same* time to move some load to a
given_cpu). However we should see less of such conflicting
decisions in practice and moreover subsequent load balance
cycles should correct the excess load moved to given_cpu.

Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Prashanth Nageshappa <prashanth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/4FE06CDB.2060605@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
sched: Update cpu load after task_tick

To get the latest runnable info, we need do this cpuload update after
task_tick.

Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
v0.3.1