From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Mimi Zohar) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 08:03:05 -0400 Subject: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: improve tpm_tis send() performance by ignoring burstcount In-Reply-To: <20170814105651.eo3e7tokt7mujeba@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> Message-ID: <1502712185.6179.20.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org 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 ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html