Chao Liu <[email protected]> writes: >> +static void handle_sched_waking(void *data, struct task_struct *task) >> +{ >> + if (in_task()) { >> + if (current->prio > task->prio) >> + ltl_atom_pulse(task, LTL_WOKEN_BY_LOWER_PRIO, true); > > The implementation also reports wakeups from softirq context through > WOKEN_BY_SOFTIRQ: > >> + } else if (in_serving_softirq()) { >> + ltl_atom_pulse(task, LTL_WOKEN_BY_SOFTIRQ, true); >> + } > > Should this description mention softirq wakeups as well?
Technically, on RT kernel, softirq is a SCHED_OTHER task. On !RT kernel, softirq can also be executed as a SCHED_OTHER task, which is the cause for concern. But explicitly mentioning softirq does not hurt, I wouldn't oppose that. Nam
