Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] tpm: reduce polling time to usecs for even finer granularity

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 12:07:33PM -0400, 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 Îs. 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h          | 4 +++-
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 5 +++--
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> index ca05828b6981..9824cccb2c76 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> @@ -54,7 +54,9 @@ enum tpm_timeout {
>  	TPM_TIMEOUT = 5,	/* msecs */
>  	TPM_TIMEOUT_RETRY = 100, /* msecs */
>  	TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US = 300,	/* usecs */
> -	TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL = 1	/* msecs */
> +	TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL = 1,	/* msecs */
> +	TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MIN = 100,      /* usecs */
> +	TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MAX = 500      /* usecs */
>  };
>  
>  /* TPM addresses */
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> index 493401f5fd39..b77a8dcfb822 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> @@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ static int wait_for_tpm_stat(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask,
>  		}
>  	} else {
>  		do {
> -			tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL);
> +			usleep_range(TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MIN,
> +					TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MAX);

This is not properly aligned and it split is into two lines for no good
reason.

>  			status = chip->ops->status(chip);
>  			if ((status & mask) == mask)
>  				return 0;
> @@ -228,7 +229,7 @@ static int get_burstcount(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>  		burstcnt = (value >> 8) & 0xFFFF;
>  		if (burstcnt)
>  			return burstcnt;
> -		tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL);
> +		usleep_range(TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MIN, TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MAX);

And it is incosistent with this in terms how the code is laid out...

/Jarkko