Quality RTOS & Embedded Software


Homepage | FAQ


This is a subsection of the full FAQ


This is a subsection of the full FAQ

Why are there so many API functions?

There are several reasons for this:

  1. FreeRTOS has been around since before 2004, has a huge user base, and its road map is driven by those users. If enough users request a capability that requires a new API, then we add the API.


  2. We chose to separate the API used within tasks from that used within interrupts. See the FAQ "Why is there a separate API for use in interrupts?" for the rationale.


  3. We rarely (not for many years) break backward compatibility to ensure new FreeRTOS versions are backward compatible with older FreeRTOS versions. That means we will add a new API function instead of breaking backward compatibility by changing an existing API function. For example, earlier versions of FreeRTOS did not include an option to allocated RTOS objects statically, so when that capability was added, we added additional APIs for static allocation.


Why is there a separate API for use in interrupts?

In summary, simplicity and efficiency. We do however understand there are trade offs to both having a single API for use in interrupts and tasks, and having separate APIs for use in interrupts and tasks.

Having separate APIs means:

  1. API functions designed for use in interrupts are optimized for that use case; they do not need to programatically check if they are being called from an interrupt, they do not need to take different actions depending on whether they are being called from an interrupt or task context, and they do not need parameters (such as block times) that are required when they are called from a task context but are obsolete when they are called from an interrupt context.


  2. There is no need to have special interrupt entry code (such as keeping count of the interrupt nesting depth, or setting a flag to indicate an interrupt context).


  3. There is no need to have the application writer take any specific steps, or add any additional code, when implementing an interrupt service routine.


Why do APIs for use in ISRs set xHigherPriorityTaskWoken rather than actually perform a context switch?

In summary, to empower the application writer to decide if a context switch is necessary, and in so doing, enabling the application writer to prevent unnecessary context switch thrashing.

As an example, imagine a simple interrupt service routine that receives strings character by character. Rather then performing a context switch after each character it might be more efficient to only perform a context switch once the entire string has been received.

Why are semaphores as large as queues?
How do I use semaphores efficiently?

The original version of FreeRTOS was developed before 2004, at which time simplicity of use and minimizing code size were two primary design objectives. At that time, FreeRTOS queues were the primary inter task communication method. FreeRTOS Semaphore functionality was then added by defining macros that used the pre-existing queue functionality - achieving the objective of minimising code size (semaphore functionality didn't increase the code size), but at the cost of semaphores being larger and slower than might be expected.

While minimising code size is still important, it is no longer the primary objective. We therefore looked at providing our users with smaller and faster options. However, rather then re-implementing semaphores, we instead optimized for the primary semaphore use cases, and introduced direct to task notifications. In most cases, a direct to task notification can be used in place of a semaphore. As direct to task notifications do not use an intermediate object (a semaphore, or whatever) they are much faster and use less RAM.

If your use case is outside of an interrupt* then Event groups offer another efficient alternative so semaphores because event groups are not only small, but a single event group can be used as up to 24 different binary semaphores.

*To explain the caveat about only using event groups as an alternative to semaphores when outside of an interrupt: FreeRTOS has a policy of not performing non deterministic operations from inside a critical section or inside an interrupt. Event groups are a broadcast mechanism as they can unblock more than one task - and as such are not deterministic as it is not known in advance how many tasks will be unblocked. Therefore event group operations performed in interrupts are deferred to the RTOS daemon task, requiring an additional context switch to the RTOS daemon task.

Why can't a task delete itself by exiting its implementing function?

To save stack space.

The original version of FreeRTOS was developed before 2004, when microcontrollers had a lot less memory. Enabling a task to delete itself by simply running of the end of its implementing function, or exiting, required the task to return to a function that would then clean up the memory used by the task, and a pointer to that function along with associated parameters would need to be on the task's stack.

Recent versions of FreeRTOS will hit an assert() if a task exits incorrectly.


Copyright (C) Amazon Web Services, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.