That's under very light CPU load. So an async approach, with no preemption, can work. If there's any significant compute going on, it won't work as well.
A useful number to measure on a scope is worst case interrupt latency. This is what matters if there's a hard real-time constraint. They measured standard deviation, but not worst case. The usual test setup is that an input signal (typically a square wave) goes to an input pin, interrupt happens if interrupts not prevented, task starts, task turns on an output pin. You watch input to output delay on a scope and look for outliers.
If you're running entirely run to completion, the outliers are determined by the longest compute task. This is a problem if there's a compute task.
This is historically where QNX shines. Interrupt is processed and schedules a thread. About all that happens at interrupt level is thread activation. The thread turns on the output pin. You can look on a scope for scheduling outliers. The best case latency is higher than doing the work at interrupt level, but the worst case latency is constant, even if lower priority threads are compute bound.
This is the difference between real time and "near real time" scheduling.
> The best case latency is higher than doing the work at interrupt level
One approach is to do everything in ISRs, a la RTIC. That requires efficient, vectored, nested, tail-chained, base priority-ed interrupt silicon, and a lot of it, but it is feasible and elegant where this exists, such as Cortex NVIC. Emerging RISC-V devices with xCLIC (ch32v, gd32v, newer ESP32 and others) are potentially even better.
I really appreciate that the author took the time to add the Embassy vs RTIC addendum.
Embassy can (these days, not sure if this is more recent than the article) do preemption, but it works by setting up multiple task pools and executors for each priority level: https://docs.embassy.dev/embassy-executor/git/cortex-m/struc... Non-realtime compute heavy tasks can be processed in the background executor and interrupted by latency sensitive ones.
In my experience, it is pretty rare to run much actual work on a microcontroller.
Testing at effectively idle represents most of my usecases.
For the times where there is a background load: RTIC has task priorities and pre-emption, so you can run your compute-intensive task with a lower priority and react to interrupts in a timely manner.
The title in the article is literally "Async Rust vs RTOS showdown!" and the article shows "Embassy/Rust against FreeRTOS/C". There should also be a (2022) appended.
You just need to read the Reddit comments to see why this is not a useful comparison [1] [2].
Technically RTOS’s can also be cooperatively multithreaded, to some degree at least (see FreeRTOS). The comparison is valid IMO as threading with fixed yield points is an abstraction that isn’t exclusive to async Rust.
> In the web world async/await has already won from threads
Slightly off topic but threads were never supported by the web (even now you only have message passing between workers) so it's a bit hollow to say async won.
ha! I was happily surprised to see this article posted because it felt like it was picking up where the technical discourse was before LLM's took over.
2022 explains that perfectly, albeit leaves me less happy.
That's under very light CPU load. So an async approach, with no preemption, can work. If there's any significant compute going on, it won't work as well.
A useful number to measure on a scope is worst case interrupt latency. This is what matters if there's a hard real-time constraint. They measured standard deviation, but not worst case. The usual test setup is that an input signal (typically a square wave) goes to an input pin, interrupt happens if interrupts not prevented, task starts, task turns on an output pin. You watch input to output delay on a scope and look for outliers.
If you're running entirely run to completion, the outliers are determined by the longest compute task. This is a problem if there's a compute task.
This is historically where QNX shines. Interrupt is processed and schedules a thread. About all that happens at interrupt level is thread activation. The thread turns on the output pin. You can look on a scope for scheduling outliers. The best case latency is higher than doing the work at interrupt level, but the worst case latency is constant, even if lower priority threads are compute bound.
This is the difference between real time and "near real time" scheduling.
> The best case latency is higher than doing the work at interrupt level
One approach is to do everything in ISRs, a la RTIC. That requires efficient, vectored, nested, tail-chained, base priority-ed interrupt silicon, and a lot of it, but it is feasible and elegant where this exists, such as Cortex NVIC. Emerging RISC-V devices with xCLIC (ch32v, gd32v, newer ESP32 and others) are potentially even better.
I really appreciate that the author took the time to add the Embassy vs RTIC addendum.
Embassy can (these days, not sure if this is more recent than the article) do preemption, but it works by setting up multiple task pools and executors for each priority level: https://docs.embassy.dev/embassy-executor/git/cortex-m/struc... Non-realtime compute heavy tasks can be processed in the background executor and interrupted by latency sensitive ones.
In my experience, it is pretty rare to run much actual work on a microcontroller. Testing at effectively idle represents most of my usecases.
For the times where there is a background load: RTIC has task priorities and pre-emption, so you can run your compute-intensive task with a lower priority and react to interrupts in a timely manner.
> You watch input to output delay on a scope and look for outliers.
better to acquire these or use timestamped gpio and compute real statistics- but for the sake of illustrative metaphor, sure.
Agreed. I really like Embassy, and the write up is a fun read. But, this isn't what "real" embedded software looks like.
When your goal is to show your pet language is 'better', you pick the benchmarks that 'prove' it.
No, this is really the whole point of an RTOS. It can preempt low priority tasks to respond to critical events.
I'm quite clear on what the point of an RTOS is, thank you. But I wasn't addressing that, which is the point you seem to have missed.
Title should be changed. Async Rust != RTOS. RTOS's are preemptively multithreaded while async is done cooperatively with yield points.
Perhaps "Embedded async Rust vs. C RTOS"
The title in the article is literally "Async Rust vs RTOS showdown!" and the article shows "Embassy/Rust against FreeRTOS/C". There should also be a (2022) appended.
You just need to read the Reddit comments to see why this is not a useful comparison [1] [2].
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/sik3g0/async_rust_vs_...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/embedded/comments/she3u9/async_rust...
Technically RTOS’s can also be cooperatively multithreaded, to some degree at least (see FreeRTOS). The comparison is valid IMO as threading with fixed yield points is an abstraction that isn’t exclusive to async Rust.
The article itself seems to have the right title: Async Rust vs RTOS showdown!
The title on HN should probably be updated to that
> In the web world async/await has already won from threads
Slightly off topic but threads were never supported by the web (even now you only have message passing between workers) so it's a bit hollow to say async won.
Those damn compilers are going to take our jobs!!!
(2022)
ha! I was happily surprised to see this article posted because it felt like it was picking up where the technical discourse was before LLM's took over.
2022 explains that perfectly, albeit leaves me less happy.