On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 09:42:59AM +0800, Nam Cao wrote: > 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. Thanks for the clarification. I understand it better now.
Thanks, Chao > > Nam
