All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
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()
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:01:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180305180144.GE5791@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180305105633.GE25377@linux.intel.com>

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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com (Jarkko Sakkinen)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] tpm: reduce poll sleep time between send() and recv() in tpm_transmit()
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:01:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180305180144.GE5791@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180305105633.GE25377@linux.intel.com>

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
--
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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
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()
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:01:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180305180144.GE5791@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180305105633.GE25377@linux.intel.com>

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

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-05 18:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-28 19:18 [PATCH 1/3] tpm: move TPM_POLL_SLEEP from tpm_tis_core.c to tpm.h Nayna Jain
2018-02-28 19:18 ` Nayna Jain
2018-02-28 19:18 ` [PATCH 2/3] tpm: reduce poll sleep time between send() and recv() in tpm_transmit() Nayna Jain
2018-02-28 19:18   ` Nayna Jain
2018-03-01  9:22   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-01  9:22     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-01 18:56     ` Nayna Jain
2018-03-01 18:56       ` Nayna Jain
2018-03-01 18:56       ` Nayna Jain
2018-03-05 10:56       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-05 10:56         ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-05 10:56         ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-05 18:01         ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2018-03-05 18:01           ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-05 18:01           ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-05 19:07           ` Mimi Zohar
2018-03-05 19:07             ` Mimi Zohar
2018-03-05 19:07             ` Mimi Zohar
2018-03-06 11:06             ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-06 11:06               ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-02-28 19:18 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] tpm: tpm_msleep() with finer granularity improves performance Nayna Jain
2018-02-28 19:18   ` Nayna Jain
2018-03-01  9:58   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-01  9:58     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-02  8:13     ` Nayna Jain
2018-03-02  8:13       ` Nayna Jain
2018-03-02  8:13       ` Nayna Jain
2018-03-01  8:37 ` [PATCH 1/3] tpm: move TPM_POLL_SLEEP from tpm_tis_core.c to tpm.h Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-01  8:37   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-01 18:44   ` Nayna Jain
2018-03-01 18:44     ` Nayna Jain
2018-03-01 18:44     ` Nayna Jain

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=20180305180144.GE5791@linux.intel.com \
    --to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=patrickc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
    --cc=tpmdd@selhorst.net \
    --cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.