Design Automation for Embedded Systems

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 263–292 | Cite as

Proper Framework for the Application of Power Management Algorithms



A power aware system can reduce its energy dissipation by dynamically powering off during idle periods and powering on again upon a new service request arrival. We minimize the dissipated energy, by selecting the optimal waiting interval before powering off, under consideration of the expected time of the next arrival. This approach has been already proposed in the past, using the idle times distribution, rather than the interarrival periods captured at the moment of service completion. Algorithms proposed in the literature utilize the history of idle periods or assume a vanishing service time. There has been no clear proposition on how service time affects the time instance of our power off decision; rather, whenever service time has been significant, a “blurred” image of the system’s characteristic and a corresponding approximated optimal policy occurred. We clearly show analytically and experimentally that the idle times distribution should not be used as a primary design input, since it is the product of two separate inputs; the interarrival times and the service times. We give insight to our problem, using a mechanical equivalent established at the moment of service completion of all pending requests and show through analytical examples how service time affects our power-off decision. We explain the paradox of being advantageous to wait for intervals more than the shutdown threshold (which is a system characteristic) and show how the introduction of idle period lengths instead of interarrival periods “blurs” the input distribution, leading to non-optimal decisions. Our contribution is to define and solve the proper problem, solely relying on the interarrival distribution. Further, we examine the problem under the framework of competitive analysis. We show how the interarrival distribution that maximizes the competitive ratio, being an exponential distribution, intervenes with power management; it renders the optimization procedure worthless through its “memoryless property”. Exponential interarrivals, irrespective of the service time pattern, are the marginal case where we cannot obtain energy gains. In all other cases the framework we promote ensures considerable advantages compared to other approaches in the literature. Moreover, it leads to a self contained module, implementable in software or hardware, which is based on an iterative formula and thus reduces power management calculations significantly. Here we exploit all operational features of the problem in proposing an implementation which spreads computations over the whole of the waiting period. We extensively compare our results numerically both against claimed expectations and against previous proposals. The outcome fully supports our framework as the one most appropriate for the application of power management.


energy management competitive analysis optimization methods simulation algorithm evaluation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Auspex File Traces from the NOW Project, available at (1993).
  2. 2.
    Benini, L., A. Bogliolo, and G. De Micheli. A Survey of Design Techniques for System Level Dynamic Power Management. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration Systems, June 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benini, L., A. Bogliolo, G. Paleologo, and G. De Micheli. Policy Optimization for Dynamic Power Management. Transactions on Computer Aided Design, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chung, E.-Y., L. Benini, and G. De Micheli. Dynamic Power Management Using Adaptive Learning Tree. In Proceedings of ICCAD, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chung, E.-Y., L. Benini, G. De Micheli, and A. Bogliolo. Dynamic Power Management for Non-Stationary Service Requests. In Proceedings of the Design Automation and Test Europe, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Douglis, F., B. Bershad, and P. Krishnan. Adaptive Disk Spin-Down Policies for Mobile Computers. Computing Systems, vol. 8, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glynn, P., T. Simunic, L. Benini, and G. De Micheli. Dynamic Power Management for Portable Systems. In Proceedings of MOBICOM, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Golding, R., P. Bosch, and J. Wilkes. Idleness is not Sloth. In USENIX Winter Conference, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hwang, C.-H. and A.C.-H. Wu. A Predictive System Shutdown Method for Energy Saving of Event Driven Computation. ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems, April 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Irani, S., S. Shukla, and R. Gupta. Online Strategies for Dynamic Power Management in Systems with Multiple Power-Saving States. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems, April 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karlin, A., M. Manasse, L. McGeoch, and S. Owicki. Competitive Randomized Algorithms for Nonuniform Problems. Algorithmica, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kleinrock, L. Queueing Systems, volume I. John Wiley and Sons, 1975.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lu, Y., E.-Y. Chung, T. Simunic, L. Benini, and G. De Micheli. Quantative Comparison of Power Management Algorithms. In Proceedings of the Design Automation and Test Europe, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paleologo, G., L. Benini, A. Bogliolo, and G. De Micheli. Policy Optimization for Dynamic Power Management. In Proceedings of Design Automation Conference, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Phillips, S. and J. Westbrook. On-Line Algorithms: Competitive Analysis and Beyond. Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook, January 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qiu, Q. and M. Pedram. Dynamic Power Management Based on Continuous-Time Markov Decision Processes. In Proceedings of Design Automation Conference, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qiu, Q., Q. Wu, and M. Pedram. Stochastic Modeling of a Power Managed System: Construction and Optimization. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Qiu, Q., Q. Wu, and M. Pedram. Dynamic Power Management of Complex Systems Using Generalized Stochastic Petri Nets. In Proceedings of the 37th Design Automation Conference, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramanathan, D. High-Level Timing and Power Analysis for Embedded Systems. PhD thesis, University of California at Irvine, 2000.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ramanathan, D., S. Irani, and R. Gupta. An Analysis of System Level Power Management Algorithms and Their Effects on Latency. IEEE Transactions in Computer Aided Design, March 2002.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ramanathan, D., S. Irani, and R. Gupta. Latency effects of System Level Power Management. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Aided Design, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simunic, T., L. Benini, and G. De Micheli. Event Driven Power Management. In Proceedings of ISSS, 1999.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simunic, T., L. Benini, and G. De Micheli. Power Management of Laptop Hard-Disk. In Proceedings of the Design Automation and Test Europe, 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Srivastava, M.B., A.P. Chandrakasan, and R.W. Brodersen. Predictive System Shutdown and Other Architecture Techniques for Energy Efficient Programmable Computation. IEEE Transactions on VLSI systems, March 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Unsal O. and I. Koren. System-Level Power-Aware Design Techniques in Real-Time Systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, special issue on RT Systems, July 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations