Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1520334372.7549.2.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] tpm: reduce poll sleep time between send() and
 recv() in tpm_transmit()
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterhuewe@gmx.de,
        tpmdd@selhorst.net, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com,
        patrickc@us.ibm.com
Date:   Tue, 06 Mar 2018 13:06:12 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1520276852.10396.351.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20180228191828.20056-1-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
         <20180228191828.20056-2-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
         <20180301092222.GC29420@linux.intel.com>
         <6ef601be-5627-6746-bd4a-4f391aba8b04@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
         <20180305105633.GE25377@linux.intel.com>
         <20180305180144.GE5791@linux.intel.com>
         <1520276852.10396.351.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 14:07 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 20:01 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 12:56:33PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:26:35AM +0530, Nayna Jain wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 03/01/2018 02:52 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:18:27PM -0500, Nayna Jain wrote:
> > > > > > In tpm_transmit, after send(), the code checks for status in a loop
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe cutting hairs now but please just use the actual function name
> > > > > instead of send(). Just makes the commit log more useful asset.
> > > > 
> > > > Sure, will do.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > -		tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT);
> > > > > > +		tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL);
> > > > > 
> > > > > What about just calling schedule()?
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "schedule()".  Are you suggesting instead
> > > > of
> > > > using usleep_range(),  using something with an even finer grain
> > > > construct?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > >      - Nayna
> > > 
> > > kernel/sched/core.c
> > 
> > The question I'm trying ask to is: is it better to sleep such a short
> > time or just ask scheduler to schedule something else after each
> > iteration?
> 
> I still don't understand why scheduling some work would be an
> improvement.  We still need to loop, testing for the TPM command to
> complete.
> 
> According to the schedule_hrtimeout_range() function comment,
> schedule_hrtimeout_range() is both power and performance friendly.
>  What we didn't realize is that the hrtimer *uses* the maximum range
> to calculate the sleep time, but *may* return earlier based on the
> minimum time.
> 
> This patch minimizes the tpm_msleep().  The subsequent patch in this
> patch set shows that 1 msec isn't fine enough granularity.  I still
> think calling usleep_range() is the right solution, but it needs to be
> at a finer granularity than tpm_msleep() provides.
> 
> Mimi

We can move to usleep_range() in call sites where it makes sense instead
of adjusting tpm_msleep() implementation...

/Jarkko