sched: reduce calculation effort in fix_small_imbalance

Date	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:00:22 +0800

Actually all below item could be repalced by scaled_busy_load_per_task
	(sds->busiest_load_per_task * SCHED_POWER_SCALE)
		/sds->busiest->sgp->power;

Signed-off-by: Lei Wen <leiwen@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
sched: scale the busy and this queue's per-task load before compare

Date	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:00:23 +0800

Since for max_load and this_load, they are the value that already be
scaled. It is not reasonble to get a minimum value between the scaled
and non-scaled value, like below example.
	min(sds->busiest_load_per_task, sds->max_load);

Also add comment over in what condition, there would be cpu power gain
in move the load.

Signed-off-by: Lei Wen <leiwen@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
sched: Reduce overestimating rq->avg_idle

Date	Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:05:34 -0700

When updating avg_idle, if the delta exceeds some max value, then avg_idle
gets set to the max, regardless of what the previous avg was. This can cause
avg_idle to often be overestimated.

This patch modifies the way we update avg_idle by always updating it with the
function call to update_avg() first. Then, if avg_idle exceeds the max, we set
it to the max.

Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>

Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
sched/rt: Remove redundant nr_cpus_allowed test

Date	Fri, 4 Oct 2013 14:24:53 -0500

From: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>

In 76854c7e8f3f4172fef091e78d88b3b751463ac6 "sched: Use
rt.nr_cpus_allowed to recover select_task_rq() cycles" an optimization
was added to select_task_rq_rt() that immediately returns when
p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1 at the beginning of the function.  This makes
the latter p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1 check redundant and can be removed.
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>

Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
sched,rt: disable rt_runtime borrowing by default

Make the default RT_RUNTIME_SHARE setting reflect the most common
throttle role, that of safety mechanism to protect the box.

Bug 1269903

Change-Id: Id4ccf0095ea254f2e15fddc7ab02069f7f60a7c0
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>
Reviewed-on: http://git-master/r/234274
(cherry picked from commit be74a12c8d8b987f569cdd0eec2aead3dcbdfa31)
Reviewed-on: http://git-master/r/237266
Tested-by: Peter Boonstoppel <pboonstoppel@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Boonstoppel <pboonstoppel@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Automatic_Commit_Validation_User
Reviewed-by: Diwakar Tundlam <dtundlam@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul Walmsley <pwalmsley@nvidia.com>
GVS: Gerrit_Virtual_Submit
sched: remove redundant update_runtime notifier

migration_call() will do all the things that update_runtime() does.
So it seems update_runtime() is a redundant notifier, remove it.

Furthermore, there is potential risk that the current code will catch
BUG_ON at line 687 of rt.c when do cpu hotplug while there are realtime
threads running because of enable runtime twice.

Change-Id: I0fdad8d5a1cebb845d3f308b205dbd6517c3e4de
Cc: bitbucket@online.de
Signed-off-by: Neil Zhang <zhangwm@marvell.com>
Reviewed-on: http://git-master/r/215596
(cherry picked from commit 8f646de983f24361814d9a6ca679845fb2265807)
Reviewed-on: http://git-master/r/223067
Reviewed-by: Peter Boonstoppel <pboonstoppel@nvidia.com>
Tested-by: Peter Boonstoppel <pboonstoppel@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul Walmsley <pwalmsley@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Automatic_Commit_Validation_User
GVS: Gerrit_Virtual_Submit
Reviewed-by: Diwakar Tundlam <dtundlam@nvidia.com>
nohz: stat: Fix CPU idle time accounting

Since cpustat[CPUTIME_IDLE] is never connected to ts->idle_sleeptime,
never read from cpustat[CPUTIME_IDLE] when reporting stats in
/proc/stat.

Note this was rejected by Michal Hocko when it was initially proposed
by Martin Schwidefsky in LKML, so if you want to upstream it, better
find an alternative (either completely disable cpustat[CPUTIME_IDLE]
for CONFIG_NO_HZ or somehow connect them to keep them in sync.)

bug 1190321

Change-Id: Idc92488910b826aff850a010016d8326c7ab9e6c
Signed-off-by: Bo Yan <byan@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-on: http://git-master/r/214638
Reviewed-by: Automatic_Commit_Validation_User
GVS: Gerrit_Virtual_Submit
Reviewed-by: Liang Cheng (SW) <licheng@nvidia.com>
Tested-by: Liang Cheng (SW) <licheng@nvidia.com>
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")

Change-Id: Iabac21e110402bb581b7db40c42babc951d378d0
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>