During random stealing we steal 4*GOMAXPROCS times from random procs.
One would expect that most of the time we check all procs this way,
but due to low quality PRNG we actually miss procs with frightening
probability. Below are modelling experiment results for 1e6 tries:

GOMAXPROCS = 2 : missed 1 procs 7944 times

GOMAXPROCS = 3 : missed 1 procs 101620 times
GOMAXPROCS = 3 : missed 2 procs 3571 times

GOMAXPROCS = 4 : missed 1 procs 63916 times
GOMAXPROCS = 4 : missed 2 procs 61 times
GOMAXPROCS = 4 : missed 3 procs 16 times

GOMAXPROCS = 5 : missed 1 procs 133136 times
GOMAXPROCS = 5 : missed 2 procs 1025 times
GOMAXPROCS = 5 : missed 3 procs 101 times
GOMAXPROCS = 5 : missed 4 procs 15 times

GOMAXPROCS = 8 : missed 1 procs 151765 times
GOMAXPROCS = 8 : missed 2 procs 5057 times
GOMAXPROCS = 8 : missed 3 procs 1726 times
GOMAXPROCS = 8 : missed 4 procs 68 times

GOMAXPROCS = 12 : missed 1 procs 199081 times
GOMAXPROCS = 12 : missed 2 procs 27489 times
GOMAXPROCS = 12 : missed 3 procs 3113 times
GOMAXPROCS = 12 : missed 4 procs 233 times
GOMAXPROCS = 12 : missed 5 procs 9 times

GOMAXPROCS = 16 : missed 1 procs 237477 times
GOMAXPROCS = 16 : missed 2 procs 30037 times
GOMAXPROCS = 16 : missed 3 procs 9466 times
GOMAXPROCS = 16 : missed 4 procs 1334 times
GOMAXPROCS = 16 : missed 5 procs 192 times
GOMAXPROCS = 16 : missed 6 procs 5 times
GOMAXPROCS = 16 : missed 7 procs 1 times
GOMAXPROCS = 16 : missed 8 procs 1 times

A missed proc won't lead to underutilization because we check all procs
again after dropping P. But it can lead to an unpleasant situation
when we miss a proc, drop P, check all procs, discover work, acquire P,
miss the proc again, repeat.

Improve stealing logic to cover all procs.
Also don't enter spinning mode and try to steal when there is nobody around.

Change-Id: Ibb6b122cc7fb836991bad7d0639b77c807aab4c2
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/20836Reviewed-by: Rick Hudson <rlh@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Marvin Stenger <marvin.stenger94@gmail.com>