Please note: This question specifically mentions two RTOSes but is more generic and can probably be answered by anybody who has written C code for embedded RTOSes before, and had their software run directly on MCUs.

I am interested in learning more about embedded RTOSes and writing applications for them. I am currently looking at Embox and RIOT because they're open source, modern, active and seem to have excellent documentation. My goal has two phases: Phase 1 is to figure out how to compile and flash these OSes to an MCU (probably AVR or ARM). Phase 2 is to then write a simple C program (basically a headless daemon), that would evolve over time as a "hobby app". I would then flash/deploy this program to the same MCU, thereby successfully deploying an appstack consisting of Embox/RIOT and my app residing on top of it.

Before I go down any roads that ultimately lead to dead ends, I stumbled across this article that does a pretty good job of explaining why real-time apps, written in C/assembler and flashed to MCUs, don't really need RTOSes underneath them.

So now I'm really confused, and am questioning some of my fundamental understanding of computing theory. I guess I'm trying to make the decision of whether or not to even use Embox/RIOT in the first place, either:

  • Stay the course and go with an "app stack" on the MCU of both OS + app; or
  • Heed the article's warning and just go with an MCU running my app "bare metal"

Obviously, the former is more work, and so there had better be a good reason/payoff for going that route. So I ask: what are the real benefits these (and similar) embedded RTOSes offer to MCU/C app developers? What specific features could my C app benefit from (perhaps by not reinventing the wheel?) by using an RTOS? What is lost by ditching the RTOS and going bare metal?

I'm asking for concrete examples here, not the media hype you get when you go to the wikipedia entry for RTOSes ;-)

  • 3
    If it's not even clear to you what an RTOS offers, then why are you interested in writing applications for them? Whether an RTOS will benefit you or not depends entirely on what you are trying to accomplish. With that said, you must learn to walk before you can run. Program for the bare metal, and as you run into problems and solve them, you will truly learn what the benefits and drawbacks are. Commented May 8, 2015 at 19:13
  • Thank you @whatsisname (+1) - that is sound advice and I will likely take you up on it. I don't think its a faux pas however, to still be interested in what the RTOSes offer, even if I'm months/years out from needing them. I guess I'd like to see the whole picture up front, at the 30,000 ft view. Thanks again!
    – smeeb
    Commented May 8, 2015 at 19:18

2 Answers 2


Microcontroller programs consist of a number of tasks. Let's say you wanted to make a computer-controlled telescope mount. The tasks would be:

  • Retrieve a new byte of input from the USB serial buffer.
  • Check if we've received a complete command.
  • If so, execute that command.
  • Read the sensors for the current telescope position.
  • Set the proper output to control the next step of the motors.

This is a fairly typical set of tasks for something you would use a microcontroller for, and are pretty easy to manage with an infinite loop, like:

while(TRUE) {
  uint8_t input = readUsbBuffer();

If you keep adding and adding features, you eventually start coming across common problems you want to create abstractions for, like:

  • Your buffer is overflowing, so you want to make sure that task can interrupt other tasks before it overflows.
  • You want to save battery by sleeping when nothing is needed.
  • You want to make sure all tasks get a fair shot. If readSensors takes too long, you want to be able to interrupt it and come back to it later.
  • You want to be able to just reset one task without affecting others.
  • You want a memory leak or other bug in one task to not take out the other tasks.
  • You want to be able to give different tasks different priorities.
  • You want to be able to sandbox an untrusted task.
  • You want to be able to execute tasks at different rates. Perhaps your sensors can only be read 10 times per second, but you want to execute a motor step 100 times per second.

One or two of these items can be handled manually relatively easily. If you have enough of these kinds of problems frequently enough that you start generalizing them into libraries, you've basically reinvented an RTOS. If your program's task management is complex enough, even if you don't use an off-the-shelf RTOS, you will eventually end up reinventing one poorly.

However, in my experience, the line where you want an RTOS is very close to the line where you want a microprocessor instead of a microcontroller. If you anticipate your firmware getting that complex, it's usually better to go the microprocessor route from the beginning.

  • This is an excellent analysis and really made it clear for me. I do agree with what you say, but I agree more with the answer from @Atsby. Especially if the goal is learning / improving my own skills. In a production system, probably better off with an COTS product or RTLinux, but to be able to low level debug that product when something goes wrong, I personally would need to have written some code that does as many of the times on that list as possible. Commented Apr 10, 2018 at 12:30

I wrote my own co-operative multi-threading library for ARM Cortex-M0.

It was barely a couple pages of code, and the first version of it didn't take longer than a day to write and debug.

The big advantage of roll-your-own is you know the code and you can port it to chips that the RTOS might not support. Also, you spend less time thinking about questions like "will it crash I try to use features A and B simultaneously?" Since you wrote the code, you know the answer.

Threading is the main thing you get from an RTOS, and it turns out to be not such a big deal to implement yourself. It's rare that you need a lot of the features of an RTOS. But if you crunch your requirements and it turns out you do, then use an RTOS.

  • Thanks @Atsby! This answer really helped me decide on whether it's worth the time investment to learn further into Bare Metal. I've written what amounts to a GPIO library in bare metal for the Pi, and I think now time to take it one or two steps further. Thanks! Commented Apr 10, 2018 at 12:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.