From: jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com (Jarkko Sakkinen)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] tpm: reduce polling time to usecs for even finer granularity
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 19:30:52 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180424163052.GD5119@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180417131246.434-3-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:12:46AM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote:
> The TPM burstcount and status commands are supposed to return very
> quickly [1][2]. This patch further reduces the TPM poll sleep time to usecs
> in get_burstcount() and wait_for_tpm_stat() by calling usleep_range()
> directly.
>
> After this change, performance on a TPM 1.2 with an 8 byte burstcount for
> 1000 extends improved from ~10.7 sec to ~7 sec.
>
> [1] From TCG Specification "TCG PC Client Specific TPM Interface
> Specification (TIS), Family 1.2":
>
> "NOTE : It takes roughly 330 ns per byte transfer on LPC. 256 bytes would
> take 84 us, which is a long time to stall the CPU. Chipsets may not be
> designed to post this much data to LPC; therefore, the CPU itself is
> stalled for much of this time. Sending 1 kB would take 350 ?s. Therefore,
> even if the TPM_STS_x.burstCount field is a high value, software SHOULD
> be interruptible during this period."
>
> [2] From TCG Specification 2.0, "TCG PC Client Platform TPM Profile
> (PTP) Specification":
>
> "It takes roughly 330 ns per byte transfer on LPC. 256 bytes would take
> 84 us. Chipsets may not be designed to post this much data to LPC;
> therefore, the CPU itself is stalled for much of this time. Sending 1 kB
> would take 350 us. Therefore, even if the TPM_STS_x.burstCount field is a
> high value, software should be interruptible during this period. For SPI,
> assuming 20MHz clock and 64-byte transfers, it would take about 120 usec
> to move 256B of data. Sending 1kB would take about 500 usec. If the
> transactions are done using 4 bytes at a time, then it would take about
> 1 msec. to transfer 1kB of data."
>
> Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Great, thanks for finding those references. Kind of stuff that I will
forget within months and have to revisit with git blame/log :-)
Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
/Jarkko
--
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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-24 16:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-17 13:12 [PATCH v2 0/2] tpm: improving granularity in poll sleep times Nayna Jain
2018-04-17 13:12 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] tpm: reduce poll sleep time in tpm_transmit() Nayna Jain
2018-04-18 15:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-04-24 16:27 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-04-17 13:12 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] tpm: reduce polling time to usecs for even finer granularity Nayna Jain
2018-04-18 15:02 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-04-24 16:30 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
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=20180424163052.GD5119@linux.intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).