On Wednesday 01 February 2012, Cong Wang wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 11:35 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 January 2012, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> @@ -323,14 +323,16 @@ static void lkdtm_do_action(enum ctype which)
> >>          }
> >>          case CT_WRITE_AFTER_FREE: {
> >>                  size_t len = 1024;
> >> -               u32 *data = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +               u32 *data = kmalloc(len, GFP_ATOMIC);
> >>
> >>                  kfree(data);
> >> -               schedule();
> >> +               udelay(100);
> >>                  memset(data, 0x78, len);
> >>                  break;
> >>          }
> >
> > I can't think of why the udelay would have any positive effect here,
> > if the idea of the schedule was to let some other process allocate and
> > use the memory.
> 
> 
> Hmm, on SMP udelay on this CPU will give a chance to other CPU's to use 
> that memory, right?
> 

There is a small chance for that, but it's much less likely than it would
be using another process on the same CPU, plus it requires SMP.

	Arnd