Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752987AbdHOGI3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:08:29 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:24834 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751781AbdHOGI1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:08:27 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,376,1498546800"; d="scan'208";a="119014996" Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:08:23 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Mimi Zohar Cc: Peter Huewe , Ken Goldman , linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: improve tpm_tis send() performance by ignoring burstcount Message-ID: <20170815060823.3orsmfbruefqps57@linux.intel.com> References: <20170807114632.1339-1-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170808191145.kggmoczd5laiccrn@linux.intel.com> <20170811111421.bg2we53rdeecjtac@linux.intel.com> <1502465419.3579.109.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170814105130.4jjdcop4mqkoxhgh@linux.intel.com> <20170814105651.eo3e7tokt7mujeba@linux.intel.com> <1502712185.6179.20.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1502712185.6179.20.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1000 Lines: 25 On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:03:05AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 13:56 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > I would like to see tpm_msleep() wrapper to replace current msleep() > > > > > usage across the subsystem before considering this. I.e. wrapper that > > > > > internally uses usleep_range(). This way we can mechanically convert > > > > > everything to a more low latency option. > > > > > > > > Fine. ?I assume you meant tpm_sleep(), not tpm_msleep(). > > > > > > I think it would sense to have a function that takes msecs because msecs > > > are mostly used everywhere in the subsystem. This way we don't have to > > > change any of the existing constants. > > For now converting from msleep() to tpm_msleep() will be straight > forward. ?Internally we would just use usleep_range(). > > Going forward, my concern is that even 1 msec might be too long for > some of these sleeps. > > Mimi We can revisit this. I would take the simple route right now. /Jarkko