Re: [PATCH] x86, sched: Prevent divisions by zero in frequency invariant accounting

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:40:55PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> The product mcnt * arch_max_freq_ratio could be zero if it overflows u64.
> 
> For context, a large value for arch_max_freq_ratio would be 5000,
> corresponding to a turbo_freq/base_freq ratio of 5 (normally it's more like
> 1500-2000). A large increment frequency for the MPERF counter would be 5GHz
> (the base clock of all CPUs on the market today is less than that). With
> these figures, a CPU would need to go without a scheduler tick for around 8
> days for the u64 overflow to happen. It is unlikely, but the check is
> warranted.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@xxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 1567c3e3467c ("x86, sched: Add support for frequency invariance")
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> index 8c89e4d9ad28..fb71395cbcad 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -2055,14 +2055,14 @@ void arch_scale_freq_tick(void)
>  
>  	acnt = aperf - this_cpu_read(arch_prev_aperf);
>  	mcnt = mperf - this_cpu_read(arch_prev_mperf);
> -	if (!mcnt)
> -		return;
>  
>  	this_cpu_write(arch_prev_aperf, aperf);
>  	this_cpu_write(arch_prev_mperf, mperf);
>  
>  	acnt <<= 2*SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
>  	mcnt *= arch_max_freq_ratio;
> +	if (!mcnt)
> +		return;

Should we not pr_warn() and disable the whole thing when this happens?