Re: [PATCH 1/1] virt: tdx-guest: Optimize the get-quote polling interval time

From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan

Date: Fri Feb 20 2026 - 13:45:25 EST


Hi Miao,

On 2/11/2026 12:58 AM, Jun Miao wrote:
> The TD guest sends TDREPORT to the TD Quoting Enclave via a vsock or
> a tdvmcall. In general, vsock is indeed much faster than tdvmcall,
> and Quote requests usually take a few millisecond to complete rather
> than seconds based on actual measurements.
>
> The following get quote time via tdvmcall were obtained on the GNR:
>
> | msleep_interruptible(time) | 1s | 5ms | 1ms |
> | ------------------------------ | -------- | -------- | ---------- |
> | Duration | 1.004 s | 1.005 s | 1.036 s |
> | Total(Get Quote) | 167 | 142 | 167 |
> | Success: | 167 | 142 | 167 |
> | Failure: | 0 | 0 | 0 |
> | Avg total / 1s | 0.97 | 141.31 | 166.35 |
> | Avg success / 1s | 0.97 | 141.31 | 166.35 |
> | Avg total / 1s / thread | 0.97 | 141.31 | 166.35 |
> | Avg success / 1s / thread | 0.97 | 141.31 | 166.35 |
> | Min elapsed_time | 1025.95ms| 6.85 ms | 2.99 ms |
> | Max elapsed_time | 1025.95ms| 10.93 ms | 10.76 ms |
>

Thanks for sharing the data!

> According to trace analysis, the typical execution tdvmcall get the
> quote time is 4 ms. Therefore, 5 ms is a reasonable balance between
> performance efficiency and CPU overhead.

Since the average is 4 ms, why choose 5ms?

>
> And compared to the previous throughput of one request per second,
> the current 5ms can get 142 requests per second delivers a
> 142× performance improvement, which is critical for high-frequency
> use cases without vsock.

Is this addressing a real customer issue or a theoretical improvement?
If this is solving a real problem, could you share more details about
the use case and Quoting Service implementation you're testing against?

I ask because the Quote completion time depends heavily on the Quoting
Service implementation, which varies by deployment. Since we're optimizing
for performance, I'm wondering if we should consider an interrupt-based
approach using the SetupEventNotifyInterrupt TDVMCALL instead of polling.

>
> So, change the 1s (MSEC_PER_SEC) -> 5ms (MSEC_PER_SEC / 200)
>
> Signed-off-by: Jun Miao <jun.miao@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/virt/coco/tdx-guest/tdx-guest.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virt/coco/tdx-guest/tdx-guest.c b/drivers/virt/coco/tdx-guest/tdx-guest.c
> index 4e239ec960c9..71d2d7304b1a 100644
> --- a/drivers/virt/coco/tdx-guest/tdx-guest.c
> +++ b/drivers/virt/coco/tdx-guest/tdx-guest.c
> @@ -251,11 +251,11 @@ static int wait_for_quote_completion(struct tdx_quote_buf *quote_buf, u32 timeou
> int i = 0;
>
> /*
> - * Quote requests usually take a few seconds to complete, so waking up
> - * once per second to recheck the status is fine for this use case.
> + * Quote requests usually take a few milliseconds to complete, so waking up
> + * once per 5 milliseconds to recheck the status is fine for this use case.
> */
> - while (quote_buf->status == GET_QUOTE_IN_FLIGHT && i++ < timeout) {
> - if (msleep_interruptible(MSEC_PER_SEC))
> + while (quote_buf->status == GET_QUOTE_IN_FLIGHT && i++ < 200 * timeout) {
> + if (msleep_interruptible(MSEC_PER_SEC / 200))
> return -EINTR;
> }
>

--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer