From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] tpm: use tpm_msleep() value as max delay Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 05:28:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20170914122856.guu76zv6xb5kdrfc@linux.intel.com> References: <20170906125643.5070-1-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170906125643.5070-5-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170913004703.wtebzfp7mlgk57xf@linux.intel.com> <54cc7899-28df-3630-3337-684b561f3760@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54cc7899-28df-3630-3337-684b561f3760@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org To: Nayna Jain Cc: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, peterhuewe@gmx.de, tpmdd@selhorst.net, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, patrickc@us.ibm.com List-Id: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:55:34PM +0530, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > On 09/13/2017 06:17 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:56:39AM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > Currently, tpm_msleep() uses delay_msec as the minimum value in > > > usleep_range. However, that is the maximum time we want to wait. > > > The function is modified to use the delay_msec as the maximum > > > value, not the minimum value. > > > > > > After this change, performance on a TPM 1.2 with an 8 byte > > > burstcount for 1000 extends improved from ~9sec to ~8sec. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain > > > Acked-by: Mimi Zohar > > > --- > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > > > index eb2f8818eded..ff5a8b7b80b9 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > > > @@ -533,8 +533,8 @@ int wait_for_tpm_stat(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask, unsigned long timeout, > > > static inline void tpm_msleep(unsigned int delay_msec) > > > { > > > - usleep_range(delay_msec * 1000, > > > - (delay_msec * 1000) + TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US); > > > + usleep_range((delay_msec * 1000) - TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US, > > > + delay_msec * 1000); > > > }; > > > struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(int chip_num); > > > -- > > > 2.13.3 > > > > > Doesn't this need a Fixes tag? > Yeah.. will add. No need just for that. I'll test this when I'm back in Finland. It was a question just to check that I'm in the same page :-) /Jarkko