From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Make timeout logic simpler and more robust
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:22:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190313132232.GB4261@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1552410298.24794.73.camel@linux.ibm.com>
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 01:04:58PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-11 at 16:54 -0700, Calvin Owens wrote:
> > We're having lots of problems with TPM commands timing out, and we're
> > seeing these problems across lots of different hardware (both v1/v2).
> >
> > I instrumented the driver to collect latency data, but I wasn't able to
> > find any specific timeout to fix: it seems like many of them are too
> > aggressive. So I tried replacing all the timeout logic with a single
> > universal long timeout, and found that makes our TPMs 100% reliable.
> >
> > Given that this timeout logic is very complex, problematic, and appears
> > to serve no real purpose, I propose simply deleting all of it.
>
> Normally before sending such a massive change like this, included in
> the bug report or patch description, there would be some indication as
> to which kernel introduced a regression. Has this always been a
> problem? Is this something new? How new?
Also: is the problem in timeouts, durations or both. Does make sense
to fix something that isn't broken...
/Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-13 13:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-11 23:54 [PATCH] tpm: Make timeout logic simpler and more robust Calvin Owens
2019-03-12 0:27 ` James Bottomley
2019-03-12 12:50 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-03-12 14:42 ` James Bottomley
2019-03-12 15:39 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-03-12 19:41 ` Calvin Owens
2019-03-12 16:59 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-03-12 17:14 ` James Bottomley
2019-03-12 18:32 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-03-12 19:37 ` Calvin Owens
2019-03-12 12:36 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-03-12 16:56 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-03-12 14:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-03-12 17:04 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-03-12 20:08 ` Calvin Owens
2019-03-12 20:56 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-03-13 13:22 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2019-03-13 13:23 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190313132232.GB4261@linux.intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=calvinowens@fb.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.