On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 17:30 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > What would be a better implementation? No delay and simply retry for > > five seconds? > > > > What TPMs are you using for your tests? At least for the TPMs that I > > have available for my tests (with a FIFO size of ~256 bytes) I would not > > expect any wait states for extend commands. > > The TPM burstcount is 32. Unfortunately, with this patch set the > performance on the pi is worse than without it. Without this patch > set we're seeing ~14 secs for a thousand measurements vs. either ~38s > or ~23s, depending on the wait sleep length introduced in patch 8/9. >From my response, it might not have been clear that with all of the patches, except this one 8/9 calling tpm_msleep(), the performance is equivalent to without any of the patches. With this patch set, but with or without the call to tpm_msleep(), it loops 2 or 3 times. Mimi
