Currently when calling xilinx_dma_poll_timeout with delay_us=0 and a
condition that is never fulfilled, the CPU busy-waits for prolonged time
and the timeout triggers only with a massive delay causing a CPU stall.
This happens due to a huge underestimation of wall clock time in
poll_timeout_us_atomic. Commit 7349a69cf312 ("iopoll: Do not use
timekeeping in read_poll_timeout_atomic()") changed the behavior to no
longer use ktime_get at the expense of underestimation of wall clock
time which appears to be very large for delay_us=0. Instead of timing
out after approximately XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT microseconds, the timeout
takes XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT * 1000 * (time that the overhead of the for
loop in poll_timeout_us_atomic takes) which is in the range of several
minutes for XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT=1000000. Fix this by using a non-zero
value for delay_us. Use delay_us=10 to keep the delay in the hot path of
starting DMA transfers minimal but still avoid CPU stalls in case of
unexpected hardware failures.
One-off measurement with delay_us=0 causes the cpu to busy wait around 7
minutes in the timeout case. After applying this patch with delay_us=10
the measured timeout was 1053428 microseconds which is roughly
equivalent to the expected 1000000 microseconds specified in
XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT.
Add a constant XILINX_DMA_POLL_DELAY_US for delay_us value.
Fixes: 9495f2648287 ("dmaengine: xilinx_vdma: Use readl_poll_timeout instead of do while loop's")
Fixes: 7349a69cf312 ("iopoll: Do not use timekeeping in read_poll_timeout_atomic()")
Signed-off-by: Alex Bereza <alex@bereza.email>
---
drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c | 14 ++++++++++----
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c
index 02a05f215614..345a738bab2c 100644
--- a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c
+++ b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dma.c
@@ -167,6 +167,8 @@
/* Delay loop counter to prevent hardware failure */
#define XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT 1000000
+/* Delay between polls (avoid a delay of 0 to prevent CPU stalls) */
+#define XILINX_DMA_POLL_DELAY_US 10
/* AXI DMA Specific Registers/Offsets */
#define XILINX_DMA_REG_SRCDSTADDR 0x18
@@ -1332,7 +1334,8 @@ static int xilinx_dma_stop_transfer(struct xilinx_dma_chan *chan)
/* Wait for the hardware to halt */
return xilinx_dma_poll_timeout(chan, XILINX_DMA_REG_DMASR, val,
- val & XILINX_DMA_DMASR_HALTED, 0,
+ val & XILINX_DMA_DMASR_HALTED,
+ XILINX_DMA_POLL_DELAY_US,
XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT);
}
@@ -1347,7 +1350,8 @@ static int xilinx_cdma_stop_transfer(struct xilinx_dma_chan *chan)
u32 val;
return xilinx_dma_poll_timeout(chan, XILINX_DMA_REG_DMASR, val,
- val & XILINX_DMA_DMASR_IDLE, 0,
+ val & XILINX_DMA_DMASR_IDLE,
+ XILINX_DMA_POLL_DELAY_US,
XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT);
}
@@ -1364,7 +1368,8 @@ static void xilinx_dma_start(struct xilinx_dma_chan *chan)
/* Wait for the hardware to start */
err = xilinx_dma_poll_timeout(chan, XILINX_DMA_REG_DMASR, val,
- !(val & XILINX_DMA_DMASR_HALTED), 0,
+ !(val & XILINX_DMA_DMASR_HALTED),
+ XILINX_DMA_POLL_DELAY_US,
XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT);
if (err) {
@@ -1780,7 +1785,8 @@ static int xilinx_dma_reset(struct xilinx_dma_chan *chan)
/* Wait for the hardware to finish reset */
err = xilinx_dma_poll_timeout(chan, XILINX_DMA_REG_DMACR, tmp,
- !(tmp & XILINX_DMA_DMACR_RESET), 0,
+ !(tmp & XILINX_DMA_DMACR_RESET),
+ XILINX_DMA_POLL_DELAY_US,
XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT);
if (err) {
--
2.53.0
Hi Alex,
Thanks for your patch!
On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 at 11:58, Alex Bereza <alex@bereza.email> wrote:
> Currently when calling xilinx_dma_poll_timeout with delay_us=0 and a
> condition that is never fulfilled, the CPU busy-waits for prolonged time
> and the timeout triggers only with a massive delay causing a CPU stall.
>
> This happens due to a huge underestimation of wall clock time in
> poll_timeout_us_atomic. Commit 7349a69cf312 ("iopoll: Do not use
> timekeeping in read_poll_timeout_atomic()") changed the behavior to no
> longer use ktime_get at the expense of underestimation of wall clock
> time which appears to be very large for delay_us=0. Instead of timing
> out after approximately XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT microseconds, the timeout
> takes XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT * 1000 * (time that the overhead of the for
> loop in poll_timeout_us_atomic takes) which is in the range of several
> minutes for XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT=1000000. Fix this by using a non-zero
> value for delay_us. Use delay_us=10 to keep the delay in the hot path of
> starting DMA transfers minimal but still avoid CPU stalls in case of
> unexpected hardware failures.
>
> One-off measurement with delay_us=0 causes the cpu to busy wait around 7
> minutes in the timeout case. After applying this patch with delay_us=10
> the measured timeout was 1053428 microseconds which is roughly
> equivalent to the expected 1000000 microseconds specified in
> XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT.
>
> Add a constant XILINX_DMA_POLL_DELAY_US for delay_us value.
>
> Fixes: 9495f2648287 ("dmaengine: xilinx_vdma: Use readl_poll_timeout instead of do while loop's")
> Fixes: 7349a69cf312 ("iopoll: Do not use timekeeping in read_poll_timeout_atomic()")
>
Please no blank line between tags.
> Signed-off-by: Alex Bereza <alex@bereza.email>
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Hi Geert,
thank you for the quick and helpful replies.
>> Fixes: 9495f2648287 ("dmaengine: xilinx_vdma: Use readl_poll_timeout instead of do while loop's")
>> Fixes: 7349a69cf312 ("iopoll: Do not use timekeeping in read_poll_timeout_atomic()")
>>
>
> Please no blank line between tags.
Fixed. Sorry, was not aware of this formatting requirement.
BR
Alex
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.