fixes #369
4.2 KiB
Software tasks
In addition to hardware tasks, which are invoked by the hardware in response to hardware events, RTIC also supports software tasks which can be spawned by the application from any execution context.
Software tasks can also be assigned priorities and, under the hood, are
dispatched from interrupt handlers. RTIC requires that free interrupts are
declared in an extern
block when using software tasks; some of these free
interrupts will be used to dispatch the software tasks. An advantage of software
tasks over hardware tasks is that many tasks can be mapped to a single interrupt
handler.
Software tasks are also declared using the task
attribute but the binds
argument must be omitted. To be able to spawn a software task from a context
the name of the task must appear in the spawn
argument of the context
attribute (init
, idle
, task
, etc.).
The example below showcases three software tasks that run at 2 different priorities. The three software tasks are mapped to 2 interrupts handlers.
{{#include ../../../../examples/task.rs}}
$ cargo run --example task
{{#include ../../../../ci/expected/task.run}}
Message passing
The other advantage of software tasks is that messages can be passed to these tasks when spawning them. The type of the message payload must be specified in the signature of the task handler.
The example below showcases three tasks, two of them expect a message.
{{#include ../../../../examples/message.rs}}
$ cargo run --example message
{{#include ../../../../ci/expected/message.run}}
Capacity
RTIC does not perform any form of heap-based memory allocation. The memory
required to store messages is statically reserved. By default the framework
minimizes the memory footprint of the application so each task has a message
"capacity" of 1: meaning that at most one message can be posted to the task
before it gets a chance to run. This default can be overridden for each task
using the capacity
argument. This argument takes a positive integer that
indicates how many messages the task message buffer can hold.
The example below sets the capacity of the software task foo
to 4. If the
capacity is not specified then the second spawn.foo
call in UART0
would
fail (panic).
{{#include ../../../../examples/capacity.rs}}
$ cargo run --example capacity
{{#include ../../../../ci/expected/capacity.run}}
Error handling
The spawn
API returns the Err
variant when there's no space to send the
message. In most scenarios spawning errors are handled in one of two ways:
-
Panicking, using
unwrap
,expect
, etc. This approach is used to catch the programmer error (i.e. bug) of selecting a capacity that was too small. When this panic is encountered during testing choosing a bigger capacity and recompiling the program may fix the issue but sometimes it's necessary to dig deeper and perform a timing analysis of the application to check if the platform can deal with peak payload or if the processor needs to be replaced with a faster one. -
Ignoring the result. In soft real-time and non real-time applications it may be OK to occasionally lose data or fail to respond to some events during event bursts. In those scenarios silently letting a
spawn
call fail may be acceptable.
It should be noted that retrying a spawn
call is usually the wrong approach as
this operation will likely never succeed in practice. Because there are only
context switches towards higher priority tasks retrying the spawn
call of a
lower priority task will never let the scheduler dispatch said task meaning that
its message buffer will never be emptied. This situation is depicted in the
following snippet:
#[rtic::app(..)]
const APP: () = {
#[init(spawn = [foo, bar])]
fn init(cx: init::Context) {
cx.spawn.foo().unwrap();
cx.spawn.bar().unwrap();
}
#[task(priority = 2, spawn = [bar])]
fn foo(cx: foo::Context) {
// ..
// the program will get stuck here
while cx.spawn.bar(payload).is_err() {
// retry the spawn call if it failed
}
}
#[task(priority = 1)]
fn bar(cx: bar::Context, payload: i32) {
// ..
}
};