On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:14:04PM +0000, Alexander.Steffen@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Is it really that ugly? I still need delay_msec to increase the > delay each round. I can see the benefit of your suggestion when it > is important to get the timing exactly right (and also account for > time spent elsewhere, when our code might not be executing). But in > this case having delays that are approximately right (or longer than > intended) is sufficient. For timeouts like this we really need to be above the TPM specified delay in all cases, even if usleep_range selected something smaller/larger.. The only way to do that is with an absolute timeout.. > Anyway, from the log messages it is clear that tpm_msleep got called > seven times with delays of 20/40/80/160/320/640/1280ms. But still > all timestamps lie within the same second. How can this be with a > cumulated delay of ~2.5s? Yes, that does seem to be the bug, our sleep function doesn't work aynmore for some reason :| > Also, I've just noticed that despite the name tpm_msleep calls > usleep_range, not msleep. Can this have an influence? Should > tpm_msleep call msleep for longer delays, as suggested by > Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt? This change was introduced recently and is probably the source of this regression. Jason
