sched: Remove a wake_affine() condition

sched: Remove a wake_affine() condition

In wake_affine() I have tried to understand the meaning of the condition:

 (this_load <= load &&
  this_load + target_load(prev_cpu, idx) <= tl_per_task)

but I failed to find a use case that can take advantage of it and I haven't
found clear description in the previous commit's log.

Futhermore, the comment of the condition refers to the task_hot function that
was used before being replaced by the current condition:

/*
 * This domain has SD_WAKE_AFFINE and
 * p is cache cold in this domain, and
 * there is no bad imbalance.
 */

If we look more deeply the below condition:

 this_load + target_load(prev_cpu, idx) <= tl_per_task

When sync is clear, we have:

 tl_per_task = runnable_load_avg / nr_running
 this_load = max(runnable_load_avg, cpuload[idx])
 target_load =  max(runnable_load_avg', cpuload'[idx])

It implies that runnable_load_avg == 0 and nr_running <= 1 in order to match the
condition. This implies that runnable_load_avg == 0 too because of the
condition: this_load <= load.

but if this _load is null, 'balanced' is already set and the test is redundant.

If sync is set, it's not as straight forward as above (especially if cgroup
are involved) but the policy should be similar as we have removed a task that's
going to sleep in order to get a more accurate load and this_load values.

The current conclusion is that these additional condition don't give any benefit
so we can remove them.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: riel@redhat.com
Cc: Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com
Cc: efault@gmx.de
Cc: nicolas.pitre@linaro.org
Cc: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1409051215-16788-3-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>