From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752707AbeCESBw (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2018 13:01:52 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:12891 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751852AbeCESBv (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2018 13:01:51 -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="5.47,427,1515484800"; d="scan'208";a="25355339" Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:01:44 +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: <20180305180144.GE5791@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> <20180305105633.GE25377@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180305105633.GE25377@linux.intel.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 Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 12:56:33PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > 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 The question I'm trying ask to is: is it better to sleep such a short time or just ask scheduler to schedule something else after each iteration? /Jarkko