rcu/nocb: Provide separate no-CBs grace-period kthreads

rcu/nocb: Provide separate no-CBs grace-period kthreads

Currently, there is one no-CBs rcuo kthread per CPU, and these kthreads
are divided into groups.  The first rcuo kthread to come online in a
given group is that group's leader, and the leader both waits for grace
periods and invokes its CPU's callbacks.  The non-leader rcuo kthreads
only invoke callbacks.

This works well in the real-time/embedded environments for which it was
intended because such environments tend not to generate all that many
callbacks.  However, given huge floods of callbacks, it is possible for
the leader kthread to be stuck invoking callbacks while its followers
wait helplessly while their callbacks pile up.  This is a good recipe
for an OOM, and rcutorture's new callback-flood capability does generate
such OOMs.

One strategy would be to wait until such OOMs start happening in
production, but similar OOMs have in fact happened starting in 2018.
It would therefore be wise to take a more proactive approach.

This commit therefore features per-CPU rcuo kthreads that do nothing
but invoke callbacks.  Instead of having one of these kthreads act as
leader, each group has a separate rcog kthread that handles grace periods
for its group.  Because these rcuog kthreads do not invoke callbacks,
callback floods on one CPU no longer block callbacks from reaching the
rcuc callback-invocation kthreads on other CPUs.

This change does introduce additional kthreads, however:

1.	The number of additional kthreads is about the square root of
	the number of CPUs, so that a 4096-CPU system would have only
	about 64 additional kthreads.  Note that recent changes
	decreased the number of rcuo kthreads by a factor of two
	(CONFIG_PREEMPT=n) or even three (CONFIG_PREEMPT=y), so
	this still represents a significant improvement on most systems.

2.	The leading "rcuo" of the rcuog kthreads should allow existing
	scripting to affinity these additional kthreads as needed, the
	same as for the rcuop and rcuos kthreads.  (There are no longer
	any rcuob kthreads.)

3.	A state-machine approach was considered and rejected.  Although
	this would allow the rcuo kthreads to continue their dual
	leader/follower roles, it complicates callback invocation
	and makes it more difficult to consolidate rcuo callback
	invocation with existing softirq callback invocation.

The introduction of rcuog kthreads should thus be acceptable.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>