running 8 Cores Together
1.2+1.6=2.8
But it Would Overheat
WE can Underclock to 1.0+1.4=2.4
1) Do not make multiple threads about the same issue.
2) You've already had your other thread moved to Q&A, what is it exactly that made you think it would be a good idea to start another thread in General ?
Related
Hi to every one..just asking about the max freq level of defy CPU that can tolerate without damaging and with long battery life using overclocking method? and which is the best CPU setting for defy including best device performance and battery live?
thanks
this is such a subjective question...everyone has their own setup that works best for them because each defy unit is different. The best thing you can do is search this forum for OC/UV settings that people have used successfully and vary those for your own device.
also, this belongs in 'Defy Q&A'..
syllogyking said:
this is such a subjective question...everyone has their own setup that works best for them because each defy unit is different. The best thing you can do is search this forum for OC/UV settings that people have used successfully and vary those for your own device.
also, this belongs in 'Defy Q&A'..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for ur advice ....and sorry for posting in wrong topic
Please ask all questions in the Q&A section. Thread moved there.
Hello,
I've noticed that mkernel ([email protected] 7) takes a little bit longer to switch more cores online (some times the CPU can stay at 100 for 1_2 sec) and that kind of problem never happened on stock kernel so is there any way to change hot-plug settings to switch on more cores faster ?( at lower load ) please note that I'm already on interactive covernor
Thanks in advance.
Jim Omar said:
Hello,
I've noticed that mkernel ([email protected] 7) takes a little bit longer to switch more cores online (some times the CPU can stay at 100 for 1_2 sec) and that kind of problem never happened on stock kernel so is there any way to change hot-plug settings to switch on more cores faster ?( at lower load ) please note that I'm already on interactive covernor
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why create a separate thread in a random place rather than asking in his thread?
khaytsus said:
Why create a separate thread in a random place rather than asking in his thread?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because I can't I have less than 10 posts............
Jim Omar said:
Because I can't I have less than 10 posts............
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is not really a legitimate reason. There is a reason for the post requirement.
The hot plug configuration is set to what the kernel dev believe is optiomal (battery/performance) if by looking in the thread you notice you are the only one withnp that opinion, it would be wise to assume it will not change for 1 user and perhaps you would be better finding a kernel that suits you instead of requesting a change for you.
MatAuc12 said:
That is not really a legitimate reason. There is a reason for the post requirement.
I'm new to xda so where should I post ?
The hot plug configuration is set to what the kernel dev believe is optiomal (battery/performance) if by looking in the thread you notice you are the only one withnp that opinion, it would be wise to assume it will not change for 1 user and perhaps you would be better finding a kernel that suits you instead of requesting a change for you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not requesting a change don't get me wrong I just want to know how to change that (like changing some values in text file located somewhere in the kernel ). Plus the kernel is very very good and I don't want to change it.
Jim Omar said:
I'm not requesting a change don't get me wrong I just want to know how to change that (like changing some values in text file located somewhere in the kernel ). Plus the kernel is very very good and I don't want to change it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh hey I think I might be helpful here.
Honestly I don't know what to tell you. The hotplug up2gn delay (the time tegra autohotplug will wait to see if load goes down before switching on another G core) has been increased by .01 seconds from stock in alpha 30. From 140ms (stock) to 150ms (a30).
How are you watching your CPU to make your "stuck at 100%" for one to two second assessment?
Are you sure you're using the latest alpha?
Strange as no one else seems to have this issue.
(Side note - why do people post questions... literally with [Q] in the title... in general instead of q/a?)
Metallice said:
Oh hey I think I might be helpful here.
Honestly I don't know what to tell you. The hotplug up2gn delay (the time tegra autohotplug will wait to see if load goes down before switching on another G core) has been increased by .01 seconds from stock in alpha 30. From 140ms (stock) to 150ms (a30).
How are you watching your CPU to make your "stuck at 100%" for one to two second assessment?
Are you sure you're using the latest alpha?
Strange as no one else seems to have this issue.
(Side note - why do people post questions... literally with [Q] in the title... in general instead of q/a?)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First thanks for your kernel and your support
I use resource monitor mini and I didn't noticed this issue on stock kernel as the CPU usage always below 75%.
Yes a30
Maybe they just don't monitor their CPUs usage .
I think because q question (when I don't know the answer)
And q/a (when I ask a question and I know the answer)
Just my opinion.
I apologize if this thread is in the wrong section, but I cannot post in the development section as I do not have 10 posts.
I'm currently using Clockworkmod with the stock 4.2.2 ROM and franco's kernel r92. I was reading the changelog and saw that in r29, he mentions that only one core is activated when touching the screen unless the second touch is more than 100px away. When using the Kernel Updater app's monitor, I see that both my cores are always activated and current clockspeed is 384 MHz. In settings, I have it set to scale cores as necessary.
Is two cores running when not touching the screen (and with no other apps running) expected behavior and a change in a later build, or is something going on here that I need to address?
Thanks!
ihakim said:
I apologize if this thread is in the wrong section, but I cannot post in the development section as I do not have 10 posts.
I'm currently using Clockworkmod with the stock 4.2.2 ROM and franco's kernel r92. I was reading the changelog and saw that in r29, he mentions that only one core is activated when touching the screen unless the second touch is more than 100px away. When using the Kernel Updater app's monitor, I see that both my cores are always activated and current clockspeed is 384 MHz. In settings, I have it set to scale cores as necessary.
Is two cores running when not touching the screen (and with no other apps running) expected behavior and a change in a later build, or is something going on here that I need to address?
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Current kernel is 2 cores online with hotplugging for the other two. It has been several releases since it has been one core with two online for swipe.
ihakim said:
I apologize if this thread is in the wrong section, but I cannot post in the development section as I do not have 10 posts.
I'm currently using Clockworkmod with the stock 4.2.2 ROM and franco's kernel r92. I was reading the changelog and saw that in r29, he mentions that only one core is activated when touching the screen unless the second touch is more than 100px away. When using the Kernel Updater app's monitor, I see that both my cores are always activated and current clockspeed is 384 MHz. In settings, I have it set to scale cores as necessary.
Is two cores running when not touching the screen (and with no other apps running) expected behavior and a change in a later build, or is something going on here that I need to address?
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you looked at a changelog for r29 and are applying it to r92?!?!?
The recent changelogs are the relevant ones. As I understand there were stability and lag issues with single core mode. His kernel now is either in dual core or quad core mode depending on CPU load.
diablos991 said:
So you looked at a changelog for r29 and are applying it to r92?!?!?
The recent changelogs are the relevant ones. As I understand there were stability and lag issues with single core mode. His kernel now is either in dual core or quad core mode depending on CPU load.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not expecting the change log to be the same, but read through the rest of the changes leading up to r92 and didn't see a mention of him changing it back to two cores (maybe I missed it?). Thanks for answering my question!
ihakim said:
Not expecting the change log to be the same, but read through the rest of the changes leading up to r92 and didn't see a mention of him changing it back to two cores (maybe I missed it?). Thanks for answering my question!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Franco is constantly releasing new kernels through his app and he has some of the best kernels out there but they are true nightlies meaning they experimental I find matrix and trinity are the best for performance
Is there a way to have individual core Control clock speeds and governor if possible I'd prefer an app for obvious reasons (easier) I'm on cm10.1 5/9 nightlies
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Some of the rate governors (not all of them) let you select the maximum number of cores allowed to be online. Depends on the kernel, but in principle you can use Trickster Mod. While clocking on the Tegra 3 is quite flexible, I believe it is not possible to have separate G cores operating simultaneously with different clock rates.
That's lame the subject came up because I have it working on my Atrix HD AT&T but I think I'll try another kernel
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Franzferdinan51 said:
That's lame the subject came up because I have it working on my Atrix HD AT&T but I think I'll try another kernel
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's the point of it?
bftb0 said:
What's the point of it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Extra battery but more speed with a kind of stepping stone per say look at it like this using my dual core 1.5 ghz atrix hd as an example
Sleep one core and you run single core with lots of lag
But with this method you can under clock core 0 1ghz to and change the government to interactive use the second core as something to the n7 companion core take it way down farther let's say 600mhz with on demand or possibly conservative governor. That way the second core would come on in times of lag for a small push to end lag spikes and like I said works on my atrix quite well
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
I think I would expect what you are describing to exhibit strange (pathological) behavior unless all of the rate governors are re-coded to collect their heuristics partitioned by processor thread affinity.
Does this also mean the 2nd processor is never off-lined? (They can drain a lot of juice even when underclocked due to static power dissipation issues, so it makes me wonder if the power savings is real)
Is the kernel development work for that device (Atrix HD) described anywhere by the implementer(s)?
A couple I couldn't point you to a definitive answer as I'm not a dev though it's defiantly someplace here on the forums even a kernel to look at
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Franzferdinan51 said:
A couple I couldn't point you to a definitive answer as I'm not a dev though it's defiantly someplace here on the forums even a kernel to look at
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you talking about that script-ware by smokin1337? If so, it seems to (try to) work by forcing the second core to be on-line at all times, and then changing rate governors on a per cpu basis, not in the kernel but by continuously writing to each cpu entry in sysfs.
I peeked over in the Atrix HD forum and it seems it doesn't even have any working custom kernels yet...
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=40253686
That's the only kernel to my knowledge
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
@Franzferdinan51
Maybe you could throw me a bone - what exactly is it that you are using on your Atrix HD that does this? (Is it baked in to somebody's ROM, or a separate flashable patch)?
I *did* go searching over in the Atrix HD forum rather extensively.
Downloaded Codex01's "CM10.1PreformanceEnhancements-3.0.1" and looked in there - this doesn't do what you say.
Downloaded tcf38012's popcorn kernel and unpacked it and poked around - it also doesn't do what you say (lots of other tweaks tho).
Found a mention of something similar in posts by skeevydude. Downloaded smokin1337's "CPU Editor" for snapdragon - it was mentioned in passing in the Atrix CM 10.1 thread.
Am I just looking at the wrong things?
Anyway, everything that I've found so far that looks close to what you are describing writes control information to stuff in /sys/devices/system/cpu{/cpu0|/cpu1}/*
For what it is worth, that same (sysfs) stuff does exist in various N7 kernels - for instance, per-cpu entries for min/max frequencies and rate governors in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu{0|1|2|3}/cpufreq/.
So, maybe what I said first was wrong. Maybe the right answer should have been "kinda - maybe - sorta". I would have to understand the PLL schemes that different kernels use a lot better than I do to be definitive.
But I am still a bit skeptical that it actually produces the result that it claims - saving battery life by forcing two cores to be online at all times... without also affecting performance. And the part about two independent control loops affecting each other in pathological ways remains open as well (threads running on the other core with a different rate governor affect the measurement of the recent system load averages used by the second rate governor - and vice versa).
It would be useful to have a decent and repeatable way to benchmark interactivity - the first-person reports of "this is really smooth" or "lags badly" are always completely subjective and non-repeatable, so it is hard to know who to really believe when it comes to reports about this stuff.
cheers
Hello,
Looking for some quick (like most) ROM, and, if you know of any, then MODs (flashable) accelerating the phone, I would sometimes play some games, but constant lag does not facilitate this; /
I have a similar problem with the GPU. Sometimes when something breaks I play graphics, pictures in the game to deform, text, etc..
I know that the fault of poor phone and Processor ARMv6, but you do not have some "medicine" on these issues?
I'm currently using:
- Adrenaline Booster
- Pure Performance
- BroadCom Booster
I have Merruk Kernel and phone overclocked to 1.2 Ghz
I use Stock ROM (Deodex)
asking for a best rom is against xda rules
please do your own research and find out what works best for you
Mod Edit
"Best" or "Recommend" ROM/kernel threads are not allowed on XDA.
Please test these things for yourself.
This is the only way you will get an unbiased opinion,and then, you can decide for yourself if it meets YOUR needs.
Don't forget to make a nandroid before you start.
Thread Closed
malybru
Forum Moderator