From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9624437C0F2 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2026 15:55:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770652531; cv=none; b=YPQPuAQ2mzBuZBhd45K8zUz5Qvo3tjpLaK6GNGTUyf3MLrgEqV7gom+uY9QCQbHlaYMLJAT6f6j7fuPjMIwsyM7xHbK0/LF9yxIpZPYEJ+xXk9CJPOgUkETQmE81MQoyYVdd4zPD0mOz3LlCN5SU82yecyRQaCqCsv9wphjKiC8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770652531; c=relaxed/simple; bh=x3pzYRgVmGn0TG3kQdTEqDTYlk/gpl2wGw2Z0sQIBys=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=o7esS+fywUtgUzPbJ2w7pK/qTc6epd4kl6/7mjtBsYGUY7fQZhJ0f9bQPlgWle+jPyz2gS4QZp1cRfkhhygemYUw6FJ17frV8Nsj/hMgtVzQ9O90ENrM3vk1N3BIDkHBFTFhTfl7q+w3gQIYsNr8hPEJ9NWuH72pAXAUvKCH0JU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=GllgBWW3; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=BQ/6mBxy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="GllgBWW3"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="BQ/6mBxy" Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 16:55:28 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1770652529; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=x3pzYRgVmGn0TG3kQdTEqDTYlk/gpl2wGw2Z0sQIBys=; b=GllgBWW3S+LRvWHJm+lSxCG/aWVzh5hkzsx6+vhs73xiim/7n1Cw2MpTS8gWS9NCZ50Tnv DcGwf+nWGuiS0rkWgymuzpJh4hiNS4Io2QvDeua9I6+NiR0aP6OPwuoJucZa+cYiMwXK7G a29bY0kvlr2OiH4PLhyYBZSpEAYMQCg+x+55zuT2ZLt+P5Bjwhqx1ox7Q5x3JD/qaioDaq Hv4vlwkY/uf6MsNL4pfFgVFeF/PR2a8MH2WJmdyaTVIqzh0tX36oVeftWAsJnHXEBKlLrF I1jGRCCd5RjpYUUvUUA+8RLTjN7Iq14H+zWYFKFsjl0nqc87UwpJYdTZdkGGpQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1770652529; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=x3pzYRgVmGn0TG3kQdTEqDTYlk/gpl2wGw2Z0sQIBys=; b=BQ/6mBxyRFOefziksMaWYPYoriUsksqMaahVkwZpIbvqrZapBfVYiYUJtDBodbjaVPDCaR EVIz2HL3uDK8W6Aw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, Ard Biesheuvel , John Ogness , Lai Jiangshan , Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] efi: Expose the runtime-services workqueue via sysfs Message-ID: <20260209155528.k7RMRPVD@linutronix.de> References: <20260205115559.1625236-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On 2026-02-09 12:17:35 [-0300], Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote: > Sebastian, as for the TEE feature you mentioned, is there specific test I > should run? Or is there any test you would like me to run in the context of > this change? Puh. If you have a TEE environment, then the EFI interface should be "supplied" the TEE instead the runtime-wrappers. My guess is that tee_get_variable() would be used instead and here the workqueue won't be used (I think). So that is the easy part. What I don't know is if this is a problem, i.e. is it possible to interrupt the secure monitor and continue in Linux before heading back to the secure environment or not. If you could check how long you end up in the next variable and RTC call and if the time is noticeable, do you see it in cyclictest or not. So if the EFI-TEE-RTC-callback takes always >1ms and you don't see this in cyclictest as a spike then it should be good. Sebastian