From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934379AbeCEK4k (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2018 05:56:40 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:33595 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933623AbeCEK4h (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2018 05:56:37 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,426,1515484800"; d="scan'208";a="22065707" Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:56:33 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Nayna Jain Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterhuewe@gmx.de, tpmdd@selhorst.net, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, patrickc@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] tpm: reduce poll sleep time between send() and recv() in tpm_transmit() Message-ID: <20180305105633.GE25377@linux.intel.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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <6ef601be-5627-6746-bd4a-4f391aba8b04@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 /Jarkko