Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] tpm: reduce tpm_msleep() time in get_burstcount()

Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>
Newsgroups net.sourceforge.lists.tpmdd-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-security-module
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:56:38AM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote:
> Currently, get_burstcount() function sleeps for 5msec in a loop
> before retrying for next query to burstcount. However, if it takes
> lesser time for TPM to return, this 5 msec delay is longer
> than necessary.
> 
> This patch replaces the tpm_msleep time from 5msec to 1msec.
> 
> After this change, performance on a TPM 1.2 with an 8 byte
> burstcount for 1000 extends improved from ~10sec to ~9sec.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]>
> ---
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> index d1eab29cb447..d710bbc4608b 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ static int get_burstcount(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>  		burstcnt = (value >> 8) & 0xFFFF;
>  		if (burstcnt)
>  			return burstcnt;
> -		tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT);
> +		tpm_msleep(1);
>  	} while (time_before(jiffies, stop));
>  	return -EBUSY;
>  }
> -- 
> 2.13.3

How did you pick 1 ms delay? Should there be a constant defining it?

/Jarkko
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.