Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Survey and performance evaluation of real-time operating (RTOS) for small…
Survey and performance evaluation of real-time operating (RTOS) for small microcontrollers
Introduction
Generic OS vs RTOS
Preemptive, priority-based scheduling
Predictability in task synchronization
Deterministic behaviors
RTOS for small scale-embedded systems
Optimizing software development
Better and safer synchronization
Resource management
Timing can be easily managed by RTOS
RTOS benchmarking
multiple metrics, not all suitable
RTOS features and API comparison
Criteria for comparison
Design objective
Author
Scheduling scheme
Real-time capability and performance
Memory footprint
Language support
System call/API richness
OS-awareness debuggin support
License type
Documentation
Comparison results
Priority-based preemptive scheduling in majority
Support C language
low OS-awareness support in IDE
some RTOSes lack API documentation
API categorization
System management
Interrupt management
Task management
Task-dependent synchronization
Communication and synchronization
Memory management
Time management
Trace API
minimal implementation in open-source RTOS
Performance and Memory Footprint Benchmarking
Benchmarking methods
μITRON, μTKernel, μC-OS/II and EmbOS
Same platform with same configurations
Benchmarking criteria
Task switch time
Get/Release semaphore time
Semaphore passing time
Pass/Receive message time
Inter-trask message passing time
Fized-size memory acquire/release time
Task activation from within interrupt handler time
Benchmarking results
Memory footprint
μTKernel has larger code size
μC-OS/II and EmbOS larger data size
Execution time
open-source and small ROM: μC-OS/II
open-source, better API and larger ROM: μTKernel
commercial, μITRON has less RAM footprint than EmbOS
Each RTOS outperforms the others in at least one criteria
Aluno: Alexandre Nadolni Bonacim