Polling vs interrupt-driven execution in Embedded C - Performance Comparison

Time Complexity: Polling vs interrupt-driven execution

O(n)

Understanding Time Complexity

We want to understand how the time cost changes when using polling or interrupts in embedded C programs.

Which method uses more CPU time as input or events increase?

Scenario Under Consideration

Analyze the time complexity of the following code snippet.

// Polling example
while(1) {
  if (data_ready()) {
    process_data();
  }
}

// Interrupt example
void ISR() {
  process_data();
}

This code shows a polling loop checking for data readiness continuously, and an interrupt service routine (ISR) that runs only when data is ready.

Identify Repeating Operations

Identify the loops, recursion, array traversals that repeat.

• Primary operation: In polling, the loop repeatedly checks data readiness.
• How many times: The check runs continuously, many times even if no data is ready.
• Interrupt-driven: The process_data() runs only when an interrupt occurs, not repeatedly.

How Execution Grows With Input

Explain the growth pattern intuitively.

Input Size (n)	Approx. Operations
10	Polling: many checks per second; Interrupt: about 10 process_data calls
100	Polling: still many checks per second; Interrupt: about 100 process_data calls
1000	Polling: many checks per second; Interrupt: about 1000 process_data calls

Pattern observation: Polling does many checks regardless of input size, while interrupts run process_data only when needed.

Final Time Complexity

Time Complexity: O(n) for interrupt-driven, O(1) per loop iteration but repeated constantly for polling.

Interrupt-driven execution scales with actual events, polling wastes time checking repeatedly.

Common Mistake

[X] Wrong: "Polling is always faster because it checks continuously."

[OK] Correct: Polling wastes CPU time checking even when no data is ready, making it inefficient as input grows.

Interview Connect

Understanding how polling and interrupts affect program speed and CPU use is a key skill for embedded programming and real-time systems.

Self-Check

"What if the polling loop included a delay? How would that change the time complexity and CPU usage?"

Practice

1. Which statement best describes polling in embedded C programming?

easy

A. Polling repeatedly checks for an event in a loop.

B. Polling uses special functions to respond automatically to events.

C. Polling is more efficient than interrupt-driven execution.

D. Polling disables all hardware interrupts.

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand polling concept

   Polling means the program continuously checks if an event has happened by running a loop.

2. Step 2: Compare options

   Polling repeatedly checks for an event in a loop. correctly states polling as repeated checking. Options A, B, and C describe interrupts or incorrect facts.

3. Final Answer:

   Polling repeatedly checks for an event in a loop. -> Option A

4. Quick Check:

   Polling = repeated checking [OK]

Hint: Polling means checking repeatedly in a loop [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Confusing polling with interrupts
• Thinking polling is automatic
• Assuming polling disables interrupts

2. Which of the following is the correct way to declare an interrupt service routine (ISR) in embedded C?

easy

A. void ISR() { /* code */ }

B. __interrupt void ISR() { /* code */ }

C. void interrupt ISR() { /* code */ }

D. interrupt void ISR() { /* code */ }

Solution

1. Step 1: Recall ISR declaration syntax

   In many embedded C compilers, the keyword __interrupt before the function declares it as an ISR.

2. Step 2: Check options

   __interrupt void ISR() { /* code */ } uses __interrupt correctly. Options A, B, and D use incorrect or incomplete syntax.

3. Final Answer:

   __interrupt void ISR() { /* code */ } -> Option B

4. Quick Check:

   ISR declaration = __interrupt keyword [OK]

Hint: ISR functions use __interrupt keyword before return type [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Omitting __interrupt keyword
• Placing interrupt keyword after void
• Using plain void without interrupt

3. Consider this embedded C code snippet using polling:

while(1) {
  if (button_pressed()) {
    toggle_led();
  }
}

What happens when the button is pressed?

medium

A. The LED never toggles because interrupts are disabled.

B. The LED toggles only after the loop finishes.

C. The LED toggles immediately when the button is pressed.

D. The LED toggles only if an interrupt triggers.

Solution

1. Step 1: Analyze the polling loop

   The loop continuously checks if button_pressed() returns true, then calls toggle_led() immediately.

2. Step 2: Understand behavior on button press

   When the button is pressed, button_pressed() becomes true, so toggle_led() runs right away.

3. Final Answer:

   The LED toggles immediately when the button is pressed. -> Option C

4. Quick Check:

   Polling triggers action immediately on event [OK]

Hint: Polling checks and acts immediately inside the loop [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Thinking toggle waits for loop end
• Confusing polling with interrupts
• Assuming interrupts are required

4. This code tries to use interrupts but has a bug:

void ISR() {
  toggle_led();
}

int main() {
  enable_interrupts();
  while(1) {}
}

What is the main problem?

medium

A. enable_interrupts() is called inside main loop.

B. The main loop should not be infinite.

C. toggle_led() cannot be called inside ISR.

D. ISR is missing the __interrupt keyword.

Solution

1. Step 1: Check ISR declaration

   The ISR function lacks the __interrupt keyword, so it won't be recognized as an interrupt handler.

2. Step 2: Review other code parts

   enable_interrupts() is correctly called once; toggle_led() can be called in ISR; infinite loop is normal in embedded main.

3. Final Answer:

   ISR is missing the __interrupt keyword. -> Option D

4. Quick Check:

   ISR needs __interrupt keyword [OK]

Hint: ISR must have __interrupt keyword to work [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Forgetting __interrupt keyword
• Thinking infinite loop is wrong
• Assuming toggle_led() is invalid in ISR

5. You want to design a program that reads a sensor value only when it changes, without wasting CPU time checking constantly. Which method is best?

hard

A. Use an interrupt triggered by the sensor change.

B. Use polling to check sensor value in a tight loop.

C. Use a delay loop to check sensor every second.

D. Use a timer to poll sensor every millisecond.

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand the requirement

   The program should react only when the sensor changes and avoid wasting CPU time on constant checking.

2. Step 2: Compare methods

   Polling (options B, C, D) wastes CPU by checking repeatedly. Interrupt (Use an interrupt triggered by the sensor change.) triggers only on change, saving CPU.

3. Final Answer:

   Use an interrupt triggered by the sensor change. -> Option A

4. Quick Check:

   Interrupts save CPU by reacting only on events [OK]

Hint: Use interrupts to react only when events happen [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Choosing polling for efficiency
• Using delays wastes CPU
• Confusing timer polling with interrupts