Re: [PATCH v3] PM: EM: Fix potential division-by-zero error in em_compute_costs()

[Yaxiong Tian]

在 2025/4/16 01:17, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:09 AM Yaxiong Tian <iambestgod@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Yaxiong Tian <tianyaxiong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > When the device is of a non-CPU type, table[i].performance won't be
> > initialized in the previous em_init_performance(), resulting in division
> > by zero when calculating costs in em_compute_costs().
> >
> > Since the 'cost' algorithm is only used for EAS energy efficiency
> > calculations and is currently not utilized by other device drivers, we
> > should add the _is_cpu_device(dev) check to prevent this division-by-zero
> > issue.
> >
> > Fixes: <1b600da51073> ("PM: EM: Optimize em_cpu_energy() and remove division")
>
> Please look at the Fixes: tags in the kernel git history.  They don't
> look like the one above.
Yes, there's an extra '<>' here.

> > Signed-off-by: Yaxiong Tian <tianyaxiong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   kernel/power/energy_model.c | 4 ++--
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
> > index d9b7e2b38c7a..fc972cc1fc12 100644
> > --- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c
> > +++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
> > @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static int em_compute_costs(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table,
> >
> >          /* Compute the cost of each performance state. */
> >          for (i = nr_states - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> > -               unsigned long power_res, cost;
> > +               unsigned long power_res, cost = 0;
> >
> >                  if ((flags & EM_PERF_DOMAIN_ARTIFICIAL) && cb->get_cost) {
> >                          ret = cb->get_cost(dev, table[i].frequency, &cost);
> > @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ static int em_compute_costs(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table,
> >                                          cost, ret);
> >                                  return -EINVAL;
> >                          }
> > -               } else {
> > +               } else if (_is_cpu_device(dev)) {
>
> Can't you just check this upfront at the beginning of the function and
> make it bail out if dev is not a CPU device?
Sure, But the current implementation applies em_compute_costs() to both 
non-CPU devices and CPU devices. After carefully reviewing the latest code,
I've found this issue has expanded in scope.

There are currently three call paths for invoking em_compute_costs():

1) Registering performance domains (for both non-CPU and CPU devices)
em_dev_register_perf_domain() → em_create_pd() →
em_create_perf_table() → em_compute_costs()

2)EM update paths (CPU devices only)

Periodic 1000ms update check via em_update_work work item:
em_check_capacity_update() → em_adjust_new_capacity() → 
em_recalc_and_update() → em_compute_costs()

Exynos-chip initialization:
em_dev_update_chip_binning() → em_recalc_and_update() → em_compute_costs()

3) Device cost computation (non-CPU devices only - currently unused)
em_dev_compute_costs() → em_compute_costs()

Note: In em_dev_compute_costs(), when calling em_compute_costs(),
neither the callback (cb) nor flags are set.In fact, it either does
nothing at all or performs incorrect operations.

Therefore, should we mandate that non-CPU devices must provide a
get_cost callback?

So Should we add a check at the beginning of the em_compute_costs() to:

	if (!_is_cpu_device(dev) && !cb->get_cost) {
		dev_dbg(dev, "EM: No get_cost provided, cost unset.\n");
		return 0;
	}
And Modify em_dev_compute_costs() to require callers to provide the cb
callback function,Also need to update its corresponding comments.


> >                          /* increase resolution of 'cost' precision */
> >                          power_res = table[i].power * 10;
> >                          cost = power_res / table[i].performance;
> > --