All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: J Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@gmail.com>
To: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc: zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterhuewe@gmx.de,
	jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com, tpmdd@selhorst.net,
	jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, patrickc@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] tpm: reduce polling time to usecs for even finer granularity
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 09:34:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <edb61d0d-da8a-5cbd-c21c-80823d587f2a@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180507160733.8817-3-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>



On 5/7/18 9:07 AM, Nayna Jain wrote:
> The TPM burstcount and status commands are supposed to return very
> quickly [2][3]. 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 system[1] with a TPM 1.2 with an 8 byte
> burstcount for 1000 extends improved from ~10.7 sec to ~7 sec.
>
> [1] All tests are performed on an x86 based, locked down, single purpose
> closed system. It has Infineon TPM 1.2 using LPC Bus.
>
> [2] From the 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 μs. Therefore,
> even if the TPM_STS_x.burstCount field is a high value, software SHOULD
> be interruptible during this period."
>
> [3] From the 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>
> Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> ---

Acked-by: Jay Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@gmail.com>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: why2jjj.linux@gmail.com (J Freyensee)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] tpm: reduce polling time to usecs for even finer granularity
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 09:34:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <edb61d0d-da8a-5cbd-c21c-80823d587f2a@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180507160733.8817-3-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>



On 5/7/18 9:07 AM, Nayna Jain wrote:
> The TPM burstcount and status commands are supposed to return very
> quickly [2][3]. 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 system[1] with a TPM 1.2 with an 8 byte
> burstcount for 1000 extends improved from ~10.7 sec to ~7 sec.
>
> [1] All tests are performed on an x86 based, locked down, single purpose
> closed system. It has Infineon TPM 1.2 using LPC Bus.
>
> [2] From the 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."
>
> [3] From the 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>
> Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> ---

Acked-by: Jay Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@gmail.com>

--
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: J Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@gmail.com>
To: Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc: zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterhuewe@gmx.de,
	jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com, tpmdd@selhorst.net,
	jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, patrickc@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] tpm: reduce polling time to usecs for even finer granularity
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 09:34:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <edb61d0d-da8a-5cbd-c21c-80823d587f2a@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180507160733.8817-3-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>



On 5/7/18 9:07 AM, Nayna Jain wrote:
> The TPM burstcount and status commands are supposed to return very
> quickly [2][3]. 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 system[1] with a TPM 1.2 with an 8 byte
> burstcount for 1000 extends improved from ~10.7 sec to ~7 sec.
>
> [1] All tests are performed on an x86 based, locked down, single purpose
> closed system. It has Infineon TPM 1.2 using LPC Bus.
>
> [2] From the 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 us. Therefore,
> even if the TPM_STS_x.burstCount field is a high value, software SHOULD
> be interruptible during this period."
>
> [3] From the 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>
> Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> ---

Acked-by: Jay Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@gmail.com>

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-08 16:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-07 16:07 [PATCH v3 0/2] tpm: improving granularity in poll sleep times Nayna Jain
2018-05-07 16:07 ` Nayna Jain
2018-05-07 16:07 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: reduce poll sleep time in tpm_transmit() Nayna Jain
2018-05-07 16:07   ` Nayna Jain
2018-05-08 16:34   ` J Freyensee
2018-05-08 16:34     ` J Freyensee
2018-05-10 12:41     ` Nayna Jain
2018-05-10 12:41       ` Nayna Jain
2018-05-10 12:41       ` Nayna Jain
2018-05-14 10:39       ` Nayna Jain
2018-05-14 10:39         ` Nayna Jain
2018-05-14 10:39         ` Nayna Jain
2018-05-14 10:46   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-05-14 10:46     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-05-14 10:47     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-05-14 10:47       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-05-07 16:07 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] tpm: reduce polling time to usecs for even finer granularity Nayna Jain
2018-05-07 16:07   ` Nayna Jain
2018-05-07 16:07   ` Nayna Jain
2018-05-08 16:34   ` J Freyensee [this message]
2018-05-08 16:34     ` J Freyensee
2018-05-08 16:34     ` J Freyensee
2018-05-14 10:52   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-05-14 10:52     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-05-14 10:52     ` Jarkko Sakkinen

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=edb61d0d-da8a-5cbd-c21c-80823d587f2a@gmail.com \
    --to=why2jjj.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=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.