text: This article examines dynamic energy consumption caused by data during software execution on deeply embedded microprocessors, which can be significant on some devices. In worst-case energy consumption analysis, energy models are used to find the most costly execution path. Taking each instruction’s worst-case energy produces a safe but overly pessimistic upper bound. Algorithms for safe and tight bounds would be desirable. We show that finding exact worst-case energy is NP-hard, and that tight bounds cannot be approximated with guaranteed safety. We conclude that any energy model targeting tightness must either sacrifice safety or accept overapproximation proportional to data-dependent energy.
  @cite_32: The fact that energy is a scarce resource in many embedded real-time systems creates the need for energy-aware task schedulers, which not only guarantee timing constraints but also consider energy consumption. Unfortunately, existing approaches to analyze the worst-case execution time (WCET) of a task usually cannot be directly applied to determine its worst-case energy consumption (WCEC) due to execution time and energy consumption not being closely correlated on many state-of-the-art processors. Instead, a WCEC analyzer must take into account the particular energy characteristics of a target platform. In this paper, we present 0g, a comprehensive approach to WCEC analysis that combines different techniques to speed up the analysis and to improve results. If detailed knowledge about the energy costs of instructions on the target platform is available, our tool is able to compute upper bounds for the WCEC by statically analyzing the program code. Otherwise, a novel approach allows 0g to determine the WCEC by measurement after having identified a set of suitable program inputs based on an auxiliary energy model, which specifies the energy consumption of instructions in relation to each other. Our experiments for three target platforms show that 0g provides precise WCEC estimates.
summary: More recently, @cite_32 have presented techniques for estimating over and under approximations of WCEC through implicit path enumeration and genetic algorithms, respectively. They do not, however, comment on dynamic power at all: their absolute instruction energy model appears to assume maximum switching for each instruction cost. Their relative energy model does not consider real energy costs, instead estimating the difference in energy consumption between instructions, again with no explicit consideration of dynamic power.