On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:04:39 +0900 Roman Pen <r.peniaev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If suitable block can't be found, new block is allocated and put into a head > of a free list, so on next iteration this new block will be found first. > > ... > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > ... > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > @@ -837,7 +837,7 @@ static struct vmap_block *new_vmap_block(gfp_t gfp_mask) > > vbq = &get_cpu_var(vmap_block_queue); > spin_lock(&vbq->lock); > - list_add_rcu(&vb->free_list, &vbq->free); > + list_add_tail_rcu(&vb->free_list, &vbq->free); > spin_unlock(&vbq->lock); > put_cpu_var(vmap_block_queue); > I'm not sure about the cc:stable here. There is potential for unexpected side-effects and I don't *think* people are hurting from this issue in real life. Or maybe I'm wrong about that? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>