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.

[ paulmck: Move call to calc_load_migration to CPU_DEAD to avoid
miscounting noted by Rakib. ]
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>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>