Database Users

[Q] Franco Kernel Governor Control?

I have the Franco kernel on my nexus 4 and loving it so far, definitely have seen a battery improvement. However there are times when it doesn't feel as responsive as stock. I know I can tweak things in governor control but I have no idea what any of it means.
Ideally I want to decrease the time it takes for the cpu to ramp up in frequency even if it's by a little bit(less than a second) so I can have the off the bat smoothness. Possibly might also want to decrease the time it takes for the cpu to ramp down.
I know straight out increasing the minimum cpu frequency would help with this but I'd rather it remain on 384 for when my phone is turned off and not getting any use at all.
<edit> this page is what I'm talking about

Manbot27 said:
I have the Franco kernel on my nexus 4 and loving it so far, definitely have seen a battery improvement. However there are times when it doesn't feel as responsive as stock. I know I can tweak things in governor control but I have no idea what any of it means.
Ideally I want to decrease the time it takes for the cpu to ramp up in frequency even if it's by a little bit(less than a second) so I can have the off the bat smoothness. Possibly might also want to decrease the time it takes for the cpu to ramp down.
I know straight out increasing the minimum cpu frequency would help with this but I'd rather it remain on 384 for when my phone is turned off and not getting any use at all.
<edit> this page is what I'm talking about
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why don`t you post this in the Franco thread?. You might get more feedback by users there, just an idea

I was going to, but an auto message said I should post in Q&A since my account is new..

try lowering the go_highspeed_load to like 80 or so. whatever your highspeed frequency is, the phone jumps straight to it skipping the other cpu steps when the cpu is at whatever percent you set the go highspeed load at. ie: if the go highspeed load is set to 80, when your cpu hit 80% load, the frequency goes directly to your highspeed frequency, skipping all the cpu steps on the way there.

Manbot27 said:
I have the Franco kernel on my nexus 4 and loving it so far, definitely have seen a battery improvement. However there are times when it doesn't feel as responsive as stock. I know I can tweak things in governor control but I have no idea what any of it means.
Ideally I want to decrease the time it takes for the cpu to ramp up in frequency even if it's by a little bit(less than a second) so I can have the off the bat smoothness. Possibly might also want to decrease the time it takes for the cpu to ramp down.
I know straight out increasing the minimum cpu frequency would help with this but I'd rather it remain on 384 for when my phone is turned off and not getting any use at all.
<edit> this page is what I'm talking about
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suggest you lower your timer_rate to 20000 or 30000. See if that makes a difference.

scream4cheese said:
I suggest you lower your timer_rate to 20000 or 30000. See if that makes a difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oo, could you explain to me what the numbers mean so I can tweak it?

Manbot27 said:
Oo, could you explain to me what the numbers mean so I can tweak it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I can but perhaps in the morning. I'm tired. Lol. Try to find some info on it on Google and see what you can dig up.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

scream4cheese said:
I suggest you lower your timer_rate to 20000 or 30000. See if that makes a difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HI~:laugh:
How should I set the value in GOVERNOR CONTROL, can you suggested me for these values?
These values ​​are my current settings.which item should modify?
Above_hispeed_delay 10000
Boost 0
Go_hispeed_load 90
Hispeed_freq 1512
Input_boost 1
Min_sample_time 20000
Timer_rate 25000
input_boost_freq 1026　　
Thanks a lot ！
nexus 4 pa3.15(Apr16) with franco r127

k8563 said:
HI~:laugh:
How should I set the value in GOVERNOR CONTROL, can you suggested me for these values?
These values ​​are my current settings.which item should modify?
Above_hispeed_delay 10000
Boost 0
Go_hispeed_load 90
Hispeed_freq 1512
Input_boost 1
Min_sample_time 20000
Timer_rate 25000
input_boost_freq 1026　　
Thanks a lot ！
nexus 4 pa3.15(Apr16) with franco r127
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally forgot about this thread. Lol.
I think you could lower the hispeed_freq to 1026. You'll still get wonderful smoothness. My go_hispeed_load is at default 99. But 90 is good. Leave everything else as is...unless Franco changes them.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Manbot27 said:
I have the Franco kernel on my nexus 4 and loving it so far, definitely have seen a battery improvement. However there are times when it doesn't feel as responsive as stock. I know I can tweak things in governor control but I have no idea what any of it means.
Ideally I want to decrease the time it takes for the cpu to ramp up in frequency even if it's by a little bit(less than a second) so I can have the off the bat smoothness. Possibly might also want to decrease the time it takes for the cpu to ramp down.
I know straight out increasing the minimum cpu frequency would help with this but I'd rather it remain on 384 for when my phone is turned off and not getting any use at all.
<edit> this page is what I'm talking about
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
k8563 said:
HI~:laugh:
How should I set the value in GOVERNOR CONTROL, can you suggested me for these values?
These values ​​are my current settings.which item should modify?
Above_hispeed_delay 10000
Boost 0
Go_hispeed_load 90
Hispeed_freq 1512
Input_boost 1
Min_sample_time 20000
Timer_rate 25000
input_boost_freq 1026　　
Thanks a lot ！
nexus 4 pa3.15(Apr16) with franco r127
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You guys can checkout this guide for using governors.. Its the basic stuff, but hope that will help you
http://androidforums.com/nexus-7-all-things-root/653973-franco-kernel-guide-those-new-kernels.html

[Q] inconsistent An tutu results.............

Hi all.
Why is it that I'm plagued by inconsistent benchmark results?.
Same ROM, kernel, temp....results that vary by 3.5k wtf?.
I'm killing all apps & cache each time, even ended up reflashing kernels each time but no joy. Losing patience now : (
All i want is a rom/kernel combi that gives me consistant figures.

forcedairinduction said:
Hi all.
Why is it that I'm plagued by inconsistent benchmark results?.
Same ROM, kernel, temp....results that vary by 3.5k wtf?.
I'm killing all apps & cache each time, even ended up reflashing kernels each time but no joy. Losing patience now : (
All i want is a rom/kernel combi that gives me consistant figures.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
performance depends on various other attributes... like temperature etc.. ie if phone is hot it wont give good benchmarks due to thermal throttling... i guess that answers your question....

Why do you actually care about benchmark results? Surely this experience must prove to you that they're a wildly inaccurate indication of performance? Anyway, it could be to do with the thermal throttling especially if you do multiple runs of a benchmark in a row.
EDIT: Reread your post and saw you said that the temperature was kept the same throughout.

forcedairinduction said:
Hi all.
Why is it that I'm plagued by inconsistent benchmark results?.
Same ROM, kernel, temp....results that vary by 3.5k wtf?.
I'm killing all apps & cache each time, even ended up reflashing kernels each time but no joy. Losing patience now : (
All i want is a rom/kernel combi that gives me consistant figures.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i bet its because you let it scale, plus other variances. when you benchmark, set the max cpu speed to be the same as the min. for example, 1512mhz highest cpu/1512mhz lowest cpu. also, your score wont be the exact same every time, itll vary slightly even if you do everything right(but not by 3.5k). and yes, heat. itll get hot and throttle, at different points of the test. you can disable throttling completely for better/consistent results.

Cheers to both of you guys.
I know that the figures are not too useful but was just initially using them to check if tweeks to kernrel etc have been +ve/-ve.
Also my biggest curiosity is about thetmal throttling. Now this seems to happen despite temps not reaching those set in kernel app.ie throttling set
to 70c yet performence being raped at 60°c

forcedairinduction said:
Cheers to both of you guys.
I know that the figures are not too useful but was just initially using them to check if tweeks to kernrel etc have been +ve/-ve.
Also my biggest curiosity is about thetmal throttling. Now this seems to happen despite temps not reaching those set in kernel app.ie throttling set
to 70c yet performence being raped at 60°c
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
just because it might say 60C, it could have already reached 70C before the 60C was reported.

UOTE=simms22;40966537]i bet its because you let it scale, plus other variances. when you benchmark, Initially max cpu speed to be the same as the min. for example, 1512mhz highest cpu/1512mhz lowest cpu. also, your score wont be the exact same every time, itll vary slightly even if you do everything right(but not by 3.5k). and yes, heat. itll get hot and throttle, at different points of the test. you can disable throttling completely for better/consistent results.[/QUOTE]
Cheers Simms.
I was leaving the max/min as they would be 'in real life' to simulate hie it would be on a day to day basis.
Im starting to think my n4 may be faulty then as the heat rises so damn quick despite lowering voltage by 100.
I keep getting excited by 21.5k results after flashing rom, then finding scores drop to 19/20 k : (
Initialy ELE, carbon & slimbean gave great results, then alas, no joy

forcedairinduction said:
Cheers Simms.
I was leaving the mleaas they would be 'in real life' to simulate hie it would be on a day to day basis.
Im starting to think my n4 may be faulty then as the heat rises so damn quick despite lowering voltage by 100.
I keep getting excited by 21.5k results after flashing rom, then finding scores drop to 19/20 k : (
Initialy ELE, carbon & slimbean gave great results, then alas, no joy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
by letting it scale, the phone chooses what cpu speed it wants to use, leading to inconsistancy. and the temp is going to rise that fast no matter whos n4 you are using. when i bench, i disable throttling and force my cpu to stay at one speed. thats how you get consistant results. undervolting wont help you at all with heat from benchmarking and can lower your scores.

simms22 said:
by letting it scale, the phone chooses what cpu speed it wants to use, leading to inconsistancy. and the temp is going to rise that fast no matter whos n4 you are using. when i bench, i disable throttling and force my cpu to stay at one speed. thats how you get consistant results. undervolting wont help you at all with heat from benchmarking and can lower your scores.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Epic advice as always Simms. Much appreciated.
Golden question now is....how do I disable thermal throttling without crazy juju programming stuff.
I may have become a flashing junkie but know absolutely nothing about programming.
Is throttle disable available through kernel apps?, I have trinity & franko ones?

su(press enter)
echo N > /sys/module/msm_thermal/parameters/enabled(press enter)
running this script via a terminal emulator will disable throttling, or going to that location via root explorer and changing the Y to a N. this works woth trinity for sure, not sure about franco(it should work unless francisco changed the location. running this script with a Y instead of an N will turn on throttling again.

Ok so now I wen into franko app. Raised thermal throttle level to 100°c (surely phone can't hit that high so shouldn't throttle)
Flashed ziddeys otg franko (had 21.5k score before using this with slim), now just scored 18980
.ok I'm gonna delete an tutu and forget about it
Aldo set max/min the same.
Ok before I delete it I'll try that code thingy you added , cheers.

But phones start to throtle when battery temperature gets to 37°C and that overwrites your CPU throtling settings.
Example:
If you get to battery temperature 37°C the phone will start throtling even if the CPU temperature is less than 70°C.
EDIT: It starts to throtle at 37°C. And throtels CPU, GPU and Screen brightness. All is in thermald.conf file in system/etc/
Code:
[batt_therm]
sampling 5000
thresholds 360 370 380 390 410 420 450
thresholds_clr 350 360 370 380 400 410 440
actions cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery
action_info 1512000+400000000+248+0 1296000+325000000+228+0 1296000+325000000+208+0 1188000+200000000+195+1 1188000+200000000+195+1 1188000+200000000+195+2 1188000+200000000+195+3

forcedairinduction said:
Ok so now I wen into franko app. Raised thermal throttle level to 100°c (surely phone can't hit that high so shouldn't throttle)
Flashed ziddeys otg franko (had 21.5k score before using this with slim), now just scored 18980
.ok I'm gonna delete an tutu and forget about it
Aldo set max/min the same.
Ok before I delete it I'll try that code thingy you added , cheers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i hit 100C the very first day i had my n4, lol. the rom also plays a role in your scores. bionic/krait optimized roms will score higher(22000-24000+). also, i wont run antutu until my cpu temp is below 30C or if im benching 1728mhz+ below 20C.

simms22 said:
i hit 100C the very first day i had my n4, lol. the rom also plays a role in your scores. bionic/krait optimized roms will score higher(22000-24000+). also, i wont run antutu until my cpu temp is below 30C or if im benching 1728mhz+ below 20C.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried that script on Franco and no joy. Will give it a go with trinity.
I thought mist funky ROMs were bionic/krait optimised? Surely ELE, carbon, liquid & slim are?
I'm gonna put phone in frufhe for a bit & run another test : )

forcedairinduction said:
I tried that script on Franco and no joy. Will give it a go with trinity.
I thought mist funky ROMs were bionic/krait optimised? Surely ELE, carbon, liquid & slim are?
I'm gonna put phone in frufhe for a bit & run another test : )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
carbon should be, slim/liquid i dont know. and be careful about putting the phone in the fridge, it can cause condensation in the phone which can damage it. turning off the screen for a few minutes should be enough to cool it down, unless its really warm in your area.

simms22 said:
carbon should be, slim/liquid i dont know. and be careful about putting the phone in the fridge, it can cause condensation in the phone which can damage it. turning off the screen for a few minutes should be enough to cool it down, unless its really warm in your area.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for being patient with a noob. I'll reflash carbon.
Is there an easy way to tell if a ROM is krait optimised?

Xmaster8 said:
But phones start to throtle when battery temperature gets to 37°C and that overwrites your CPU throtling settings.
Example:
If you get to battery temperature 37°C the phone will start throtling even if the CPU temperature is less than 70°C.
EDIT: It starts to throtle at 37°C. And throtels CPU, GPU and Screen brightness. All is in thermald.conf file in system/etc/
Code:
[batt_therm]
sampling 5000
thresholds 360 370 380 390 410 420 450
thresholds_clr 350 360 370 380 400 410 440
actions cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery
action_info 1512000+400000000+248+0 1296000+325000000+228+0 1296000+325000000+208+0 1188000+200000000+195+1 1188000+200000000+195+1 1188000+200000000+195+2 1188000+200000000+195+3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's real helpful, much appreciated : )

Xmaster8 said:
But phones start to throtle when battery temperature gets to 37°C and that overwrites your CPU throtling settings.
Example:
If you get to battery temperature 37°C the phone will start throtling even if the CPU temperature is less than 70°C.
EDIT: It starts to throtle at 37°C. And throtels CPU, GPU and Screen brightness. All is in thermald.conf file in system/etc/
Code:
[batt_therm]
sampling 5000
thresholds 360 370 380 390 410 420 450
thresholds_clr 350 360 370 380 400 410 440
actions cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery cpu+gpu+lcd+battery
action_info 1512000+400000000+248+0 1296000+325000000+228+0 1296000+325000000+208+0 1188000+200000000+195+1 1188000+200000000+195+1 1188000+200000000+195+2 1188000+200000000+195+3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
trinity kernel removed thermald, so no battery temp throttling there.

simms22 said:
trinity kernel removed thermald, so no battery temp throttling there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just hope that someone converts a trinity to otg. Ziddey has posted the change log but I'm not technical enough to do it.

[MOD] Advanced Interactive Governor Tweaks - PixelBits v3.1 21-02-2016

Now that we have root access and are able to make modifications to the interactive governor, I have worked through the same principles of the nexus 6p governor tweaks as they would be applied to the Pixel C X1.
Original Guide:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/nexus-5x/general/guide-advanced-interactive-governor-t3269557
and extra help from @xSilas43 to further refine the settings
So the main differents between the qualcomm and nvidia are core count and cpu freq steps are different, so some options aren't available (touchboost etc) but the theory is still the same. The only thing missing now is a method to determine voltage of each cpu freq step so we can get better effective values.

So I went through and did all the maths based on the proper target loads and i think its optimised properly now with lower cpu values then before.
Important: set the min cpu speed to 102Mhz as seems that its set to 204 by default but perfectly fine to sit that low.
So based on my testing with stock given the recently discovered bug on stock
I don't recommended using these tweaks at present so please only use if you are on dirty unicorn or other asop build
V3.1 PixelBits testrev
target_loads - 8 102000:40 204000:60 306000:68 408000:72 510000:20 612000:77 714000:14 816000:80 918000:81 1020000:82 1122000:8 1224000:83 1326000:8 1428000:8 1530000:84 1632000:6 1734000:99 1836000:99 1912000:99
timer_slack - 50000
hispeed_freq - 204Mhz
timer_rate - 50000
above_hispeed_delay - 30000 612000:20000 816000:20000
go_hispeed_load - 99
min_sample_time - 80000
Previous Versions
V3.0 PixelBits
target_loads - 45 102000:45 204000:60 306000:68 408000:72 510000:20 612000:77 714000:14 816000:80 918000:81 1020000:82 1122000:8 1224000:83 1326000:8 1428000:8 1530000:84 1632000:6 1734000:99 1836000:99 1912000:99
timer_slack - 50000
hispeed_freq - 204Mhz
timer_rate - 50000
above_hispeed_delay - 30000 612000:20000 816000:20000
go_hispeed_load - 99
min_sample_time - 80000
V2.2 more refinements edition with help from @xSilas43
target_loads - 45 102000:45 204000:60 306000:68 408000:72 510000:20 612000:77 714000:14 816000:80 918000:81 1020000:8 1122000:8 1224000:83 1326000:8 1428000:8 1530000:84 1632000:6 1734000:99 1836000:99 1912000:99
timer_slack - 50000
hispeed_freq - 204Mhz
timer_rate - 50000
above_hispeed_delay - 30000 408000:20000 612000:20000 816000:20000
go_hispeed_load - 99
min_sample_time - 80000
V2.0 Optimised for X1 (based on nomial loads with min and max thresholds based on target loads)
target_loads - 45 102000:45 204000:50 306000:68 408000:72 510000:20 612000:77 714000:14 816000:80 918000:11 1020000:10 1122000:9 1224000:83 1326000:8 1428000:84 1530000:7 1632000:85 1734000:6 1836000:86
timer_slack - 80000
hispeed_freq - 306Mhz
timer_rate - 40000
above_hispeed_delay - 30000 612000:20000 714000:20000
go_hispeed_load - 99
min_sample_time - 30000
V1.0 Lazy Values
target_loads - 75 408000:69 612000:80 714000:79 816000:80 918000:81 1020000:69 1326000:84 1632000:82 1836000:86
timer_slack - -1
hispeed_freq - 306Mhz
timer_rate - 20000
above_hispeed_delay - 30000 612000:20000 714000:10000
go_hispeed_load - 75
min_sample_time - 60000
Attached the latest profile for use with EX Kernel Manager for those that have it.
Place in Elemental X/gov_profiles and should appear in the app under gov options.
Please try out and let me know any feedback or issues with these settings, but everything should be stable as i have been running this for about 3 weeks now with no issues.

What other governors are available with the pixel kernel?

bill3508 said:
What other governors are available with the pixel kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just the standard bunch: conservative, interactive, ondemand, userspace, powersave, and performance

beardymcgee said:
Just the standard bunch: conservative, interactive, ondemand, userspace, powersave, and performance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does the conservative governor have the touch boost option?

bill3508 said:
Does the conservative governor have the touch boost option?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nope nothing does

So no one interested in trying it?.....

beardymcgee said:
So no one interested in trying it?.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Trying it now. Feels real snappy so far.

Cheers for testing, Would you agree, that its running better then stock?
So far I've found it doesn't get hot on basic stuff anymore and no impact to performance, also ex manger has been saying 7% battery per hour which was 10% before tinkering

beardymcgee said:
Cheers for testing, Would you agree, that its running better then stock?
So far I've found it doesn't get hot on basic stuff anymore and no impact to performance, also ex manger has been saying 7% battery per hour which was 10% before tinkering
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I definitely think so. Ive never really been a big fan of interactive but until the 5x and 6p threads no one has really modified the values like that. I still haven't messed with any of the scripts folks are running on those devices but I may play around with the numbers some. Seems to be working great on the C. Thanks again.

So based on my usage I got 3 days of use with 9.5 hours SOT and 10% to go, would love to hear from more people if this did anything.

I just charged up so I'll let you know at the end.

Cheers for helping out, its sad that people would rather complain about software issues that will be fixed soon, than do the normal xda custom thing.

So i have updated the stepping to better match the x1 cpu in post #2.
as always feedback on this would be great, incase i made it too low for usecases beyond my own

beardymcgee said:
So i have updated the stepping to better match the x1 cpu in post #2.
as always feedback on this would be great, incase i made it too low for usecases beyond my own
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll try the new values next charge up.

I will try it when a safety root method will be release By the way, The X1 CPU owns 8 cores, why only 4 of them are activated ? Is there a way to activate both of 8 cores ?

riro56 said:
I will try it when a safety root method will be release By the way, The X1 CPU owns 8 cores, why only 4 of them are activated ? Is there a way to activate both of 8 cores ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Root method has been fixed just don't flash su in twrp and follow the method in the twrp thread.

riro56 said:
I will try it when a safety root method will be release By the way, The X1 CPU owns 8 cores, why only 4 of them are activated ? Is there a way to activate both of 8 cores ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So based on the anandtech review seems that its only the a57 cores and the a53 cores are disabled but has stepping from 51mhz to 1912mhz. That said I don't think there is a need for the a53 cores as on the pure CPU performance space it benchmarks the same or better then snapdragon 810 with all 8 cores enabled

beardymcgee said:
So based on the anandtech review seems that its only the a57 cores and the a53 cores are disabled but has stepping from 51mhz to 1912mhz. That said I don't think there is a need for the a53 cores as on the pure CPU performance space it benchmarks the same or better then snapdragon 810 with all 8 cores enabled
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But I doubt we would have the throttling problems that the 810 does so I could only see it as beneficial. Also the smaller cored would likely only improve already stellar battery life using setups like we're seeing on the 6p.

so I been reading the original thread and came up with 2 paths.
one using the original basic tuned method to have a nominal target speed for different functions like web browsing and video playback etc and increase the focus on these speed steps only while minimising the time on others.
or based on what the current recommendation in the "easy way" say to just use max efficient loads on each step
but as I have been tinkering too much i cant tell any more which is better so I have created a poll so please try these 3 version and vote on which is better

Interactive governor tweaks

Hi everyone,
I've been reading this
http://forum.xda-developers.com/nexus-5x/general/guide-advanced-interactive-governor-t3269557
and was wondering if anybody was interested and knew their way around to try and adapt these tweaks for our trusty htc ones?
Some n5x users (specifically those who tend to not game heavily or use the camera extensively) seem to reek performance boosts while also considerably extending SOT. The OP's tweaks got the attention (and as far as I know the support) of flar2 (elementalx kernel) considering he implemented the ability to apply profiles into his ex kernel manager specifically so the interactive governor settings could be applied more easily (unless I misunderstood something - correct me if I'm wrong on that). These tweaks can be made regardless of kernel or rom - the only prerequisite is the availability of the interactive governor. It may be something worth looking into and I'm willing to learn and test - I just kinda need someone to take me by the hand and help and explain because I feel a bit lost in regards to how to best proceed :silly:
What do you guys think?

over the next few days,im gonna be working on testing out some settings (of course following that guide)
if i get anywhere with them,i shall share them

That's great to hear, thank you :good: If I can be of any help please let me know!

These are my minimal settings for now based on my usage analysis . Will probably adjust them with battery performance this week.
Idle - 384000
Page Scrolling - 702000
Video - 918000
App Loading - 1134000
High Load Processing - 1728000 ( or 1566000 )

Sinistersky said:
These are my minimal settings for now based on my usage analysis . Will probably adjust them with battery performance this week.
Idle - 384000
Page Scrolling - 702000
Video - 918000
App Loading - 1134000
High Load Processing - 1728000 ( or 1566000 )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If this is a stupid question I apologise but how do you apply these in ex kernel manager (or equivalent app you use)?

antimatter.web said:
If this is a stupid question I apologise but how do you apply these in ex kernel manager (or equivalent app you use)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is my setup right now. Can someone who is working on this check if I did it correctly, I have some stuttering here and there so I think i'm missing something, since it should be buttery smooth and battery friendly.

Sinistersky said:
This is my setup right now. Can someone who is working on this check if I did it correctly, I have some stuttering here and there so I think i'm missing something, since it should be buttery smooth and battery friendly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks :good:
Again, I'm not sure about this, but I believe you shouldn't be needing to spend that much time at max. frequency. No idea how to get it down, but I feel like I did read something in the original thread. To me (as a fairly noob, layman forum user) that 32% seems high.
Have you seen any battery savings with your current setup?

​
antimatter.web said:
Thanks :good:
Again, I'm not sure about this, but I believe you shouldn't be needing to spend that much time at max. frequency. No idea how to get it down, but I feel like I did read something in the original thread. To me (as a fairly noob, layman forum user) that 32% seems high.
Have you seen any battery savings with your current setup?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, I kinnda have. But Im still tweaking it. I just dont know how to bring down the frequency It's like I setup something wrong. I do have more battery life, but I think I can do even better. Just need the right values

Sinistersky said:
Yea, I kinnda have. But Im still tweaking it. I just dont know how to bring down the frequency It's like I setup something wrong. I do have more battery life, but I think I can do even better. Just need the right values
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One follow up to my post on the N5X thread: (http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=66100620&postcount=2990)
set
highspeed freq to 810000 or 702000
go highspeed load to a value between 95 and 98
the first value on taget loads to 95 384... (90 or anything lower should be ok, too, doesn't matter much as this already is the lowest freq)
the target_load value for your highspeed freq (the value after the ":" ) to a value between 81 and 90
---Edit:
Oh, and: lower target_loads => earlier to the next freq => less laggy. You can tweak that behavior with the delays and timer rate, too
But: Many frequency changes / jumps => more lag

.hEiMDaLL. said:
One follow up to my post on the N5X thread: (http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=66100620&postcount=2990)
set
highspeed freq to 810000 or 702000
go highspeed load to a value between 95 and 98
the first value on taget loads to 95 384... (90 or anything lower should be ok, too, doesn't matter much as this already is the lowest freq)
the target_load value for your highspeed freq (the value after the ":" ) to a value between 81 and 90
---Edit:
Oh, and: lower target_loads => earlier to the next freq => less laggy. You can tweak that behavior with the delays and timer rate, too
But: Many frequency changes / jumps => more lag
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok. So what happens if I don't set every frequency? I think I saw a EVO 4G thread with this and OP had only 3 freq set in the target_load ? Is that more efficient? So to make this have proper results, I need to change the numbers after ":" until i get the perfect results?
--Edit:
Ok. These are waaay better results than I ever had. Now the other frequencies are actually being used

Sinistersky said:
Ok. So what happens if I don't set every frequency? I think I saw a EVO 4G thread with this and OP had only 3 freq set in the target_load ? Is that more efficient? So to make this have proper results, I need to change the numbers after ":" until i get the perfect results?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It uses the target_loads you set for the lower freq. efficiency depends on the numbers it's less text to write if the loads are all the same for each freq...
The numbers behind the ":" (the target_loads) are only one part. the other settings like timer_rate and above_highspeed_delay have a huge impact on how fast the cpu reacts under load, too. sonicron described them very well in his guides.
---EDIT:
Seems you are on the right way with these values. Max freq still is used a bit to much, but I'm sure you'll find the best values after some tries. Took me hours, sometimes days to set up my profiles...

.hEiMDaLL. said:
It uses the target_loads you set for the lower freq. efficiency depends on the numbers it's less text to write if the loads are all the same for each freq...
The numbers behind the ":" (the target_loads) are only one part. the other settings like timer_rate and above_highspeed_delay have a huge impact on how fast the cpu reacts under load, too. sonicron described them very well in his guides.
---EDIT:
Seems you are on the right way with these values. Max freq still is used a bit to much, but I'm sure you'll find the best values after some tries. Took me hours, sometimes days to set up my profiles...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I keep re-reading sonicron's first post due to not understanding it so well even though he explained it with so much detail, but the way I see it, if I'm correct, increasing timer_rate makes the cpu use the lower frequencies more, or the jumps between frequencies are faster? I set the timer_rate to 40000 now, just to see if it will prolong my battery. And why is the timer_slack in N5X set to -1? What's the purpose of that? If i understand correctly, it makes the switch between frequencies incredibly fast, almost instant??
Thank you for guiding me so far with this. I understand these might seem as annoying questions, but I'm trying to learn as much as I can through them

Sinistersky said:
Yes, I keep re-reading sonicron's first post due to not understanding it so well even though he explained it with so much detail, but the way I see it, if I'm correct, increasing timer_rate makes the cpu use the lower frequencies more, or the jumps between frequencies are faster? I set the timer_rate to 40000 now, just to see if it will prolong my battery. And why is the timer_slack in N5X set to -1? What's the purpose of that? If i understand correctly, it makes the switch between frequencies incredibly fast, almost instant??
Thank you for guiding me so far with this. I understand these might seem as annoying questions, but I'm trying to learn as much as I can through them
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've read sonicrons first post a few times myself (as I'm very interested in the idea) but my technical knowhow stops at basic adb and recovery knowledge for flashing roms... May I bother you for the current values you are using? Sorry if I seem like I'm not trying - I am

antimatter.web said:
I've read sonicrons first post a few times myself (as I'm very interested in the idea) but my technical knowhow stops at basic adb and recovery knowledge for flashing roms... May I bother you for the current values you are using? Sorry if I seem like I'm not trying - I am
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, of course. You can have it, it's no bother. I'll attach my settings. However, these are not final. The phone jitters here and there, and I think the battery life is better by only a slight percent. I am hoping during hte next few days to find values that wil give more SoT and smooth performance. I will also need help with that

Sinistersky said:
Yes, of course. You can have it, it's no bother. I'll attach my settings. However, these are not final. The phone jitters here and there, and I think the battery life is better by only a slight percent. I am hoping during hte next few days to find values that wil give more SoT and smooth performance. I will also need help with that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for those I will apply those and see how they work for me. I'm currently using CM12.1 (Snapshot) and greenify for a few apps. What setup are you using?
If I can be of any help (I'm not going to pretend I will be of much) please let me know
Edit: I may have spotted an error: in the first line of target loads your second frequency should be 486000:60 not 48600:60, right? Could that be the reason for your jitters maybe?

antimatter.web said:
Thanks for those I will apply those and see how they work for me. I'm currently using CM12.1 (Snapshot) and greenify for a few apps. What setup are you using?
If I can be of any help (I'm not going to pretend I will be of much) please let me know
Edit: I may have spotted an error: in the first line of target loads your second frequency should be 486000:60 not 48600:60, right? Could that be the reason for your jitters maybe?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, that is correct. I spotted it myself this morning. And the battery life has gotten insane. 8% in 1 hour of texting and screen on :highfive: So generally, this would mean about 8 hours of screen on time for sure.
--EDIT: Im using AICP with stock kernel and greenify and amplify

Sinistersky said:
Yes, I keep re-reading sonicron's first post due to not understanding it so well even though he explained it with so much detail, but the way I see it, if I'm correct, increasing timer_rate makes the cpu use the lower frequencies more, or the jumps between frequencies are faster? I set the timer_rate to 40000 now, just to see if it will prolong my battery. And why is the timer_slack in N5X set to -1? What's the purpose of that? If i understand correctly, it makes the switch between frequencies incredibly fast, almost instant??
Thank you for guiding me so far with this. I understand these might seem as annoying questions, but I'm trying to learn as much as I can through them
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In short, the timer_rate is just the intervall after which the governor reevaluates the loads. So it doesn't affect which frequencies are used more, but how long it "waits" to check whether it should go up to the next freq. However, this is indirectly linked to the fact, that the device will stay at a lower freq for longer.
After the decision is made to change the freq, the next thing that keeps the cpu ramp up to the next freq instantly is the delay timer (above_highspeed_delay)
timer_slack defines the max additional time that can be added to timer_freq, thus the time to defer handling the governor sampling timer.
From kernel docs: [...] at speeds greater than minimum, this places an upper bound on how long the timer will be deferred prior to re-evaluating load and dropping speed.
For example, if timer_rate is 20000uS and timer_slack is 10000uS then timers will be deferred for up to 30msec when not at lowest speed.
A value of -1 means defer timers indefinitely at all speeds. Default is 80000 uS.
here's the link to the document. Might come in handy https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/android-3.4/Documentation/cpu-freq/governors.txt
Questions are there to be asked and do not only help the one who asked the question, but the one who get's asked as well So asking and answering, both can be about learning something new, for both parties.

.hEiMDaLL. said:
In short, the timer_rate is just the intervall after which the governor reevaluates the loads. So it doesn't affect which frequencies are used more, but how long it "waits" to check whether it should go up to the next freq. However, this is indirectly linked to the fact, that the device will stay at a lower freq for longer.
After the decision is made to change the freq, the next thing that keeps the cpu ramp up to the next freq instantly is the delay timer (above_highspeed_delay)
timer_slack defines the max additional time that can be added to timer_freq, thus the time to defer handling the governor sampling timer.
From kernel docs: [...] at speeds greater than minimum, this places an upper bound on how long the timer will be deferred prior to re-evaluating load and dropping speed.
For example, if timer_rate is 20000uS and timer_slack is 10000uS then timers will be deferred for up to 30msec when not at lowest speed.
A value of -1 means defer timers indefinitely at all speeds. Default is 80000 uS.
here's the link to the document. Might come in handy https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/android-3.4/Documentation/cpu-freq/governors.txt
Questions are there to be asked and do not only help the one who asked the question, but the one who get's asked as well So asking and answering, both can be about learning something new, for both parties.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is there an app that I could use to determine instantly what load the CPU uses when I open chrome, or messenger or just scroll around?
I want to make it so I get a higher frequency on the app opening load, and a lower one on the idle and scrolling load. But if i for instance, set target_load 1566000:85, it uses the 1242000:89 for app opening I think, since it's kinnda laggier?
I can't get rid of these little jitters when switching screens, or apps I'm trying to learn what happens if I put higher numbers after ":" on certain mHz, does that make it so it stays longer on that mHz value or does it wait longer before it goes higher/lower to/from that mHz? And if so, would it be logical and less laggy to put something like 1242000:50 1350000:83 1458000:80 1566000:87 ( I'm guessing these frequencies are used the most when opening an app?)

Sinistersky said:
Is there an app that I could use to determine instantly what load the CPU uses when I open chrome, or messenger or just scroll around?
I want to make it so I get a higher frequency on the app opening load, and a lower one on the idle and scrolling load. But if i for instance, set target_load 1566000:85, it uses the 1242000:89 for app opening I think, since it's kinnda laggier?
I can't get rid of these little jitters when switching screens, or apps I'm trying to learn what happens if I put higher numbers after ":" on certain mHz, does that make it so it stays longer on that mHz value or does it wait longer before it goes higher/lower to/from that mHz? And if so, would it be logical and less laggy to put something like 1242000:50 1350000:83 1458000:80 1566000:87 ( I'm guessing these frequencies are used the most when opening an app?)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I use the overlays from DevCheck by flar2 and the process/cpu usage overlay one can enable in the developer options in settings. I guess there are plenty of tools/apps out there that do the same (I remember an app called "cool tool" which I had on my M7).
The jitters might get better when you change the delays (and/or timer rate to a lower value). setting the target_loads lower also helps, but you have to remember that the frequency might not be used at all (which is not a bad thing in general). When you set the load to eg. 40, the cpu will will go up to the next frequency as soon as the load under actual circumstances reaches 40%. As an example (with fantasy numbers): With a setting like 1000000:80 1100000:30 1200000:80, the 1100MHz might never be used at all when ramping up, cause the 80% at 1000MHz are already higher than 30% at 1100MHz. Of course, if the gap between those two frequencies would be higher (lets say 1000MHz and 2100MHz) the cpu might not be ulilized over 30% when coming from 80% at 1000MHz). Thats why you have to calculate the efficient loads, to find out what the most (power) efficient frequencies are, and give those a bit more "priority". You can do this by setting the target load higher on those (lower on the others)
I can't tell you what numbers (target_loads) you have to put in, I'd need the actual device to test how it performs under different loads with stock and tweaked settings.

.hEiMDaLL. said:
I use the overlays from DevCheck by flar2 and the process/cpu usage overlay one can enable in the developer options in settings. I guess there are plenty of tools/apps out there that do the same (I remember an app called "cool tool" which I had on my M7).
The jitters might get better when you change the delays (and/or timer rate to a lower value). setting the target_loads lower also helps, but you have to remember that the frequency might not be used at all (which is not a bad thing in general). When you set the load to eg. 40, the cpu will will go up to the next frequency as soon as the load under actual circumstances reaches 40%. As an example (with fantasy numbers): With a setting like 1000000:80 1100000:30 1200000:80, the 1100MHz might never be used at all when ramping up, cause the 80% at 1000MHz are already higher than 30% at 1100MHz. Of course, if the gap between those two frequencies would be higher (lets say 1000MHz and 2100MHz) the cpu might not be ulilized over 30% when coming from 80% at 1000MHz). Thats why you have to calculate the efficient loads, to find out what the most (power) efficient frequencies are, and give those a bit more "priority". You can do this by setting the target load higher on those (lower on the others)
I can't tell you what numbers (target_loads) you have to put in, I'd need the actual device to test how it performs under different loads with stock and tweaked settings.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh, so, if I understand this correctly, the number after ":" is like a roof. And when the CPU load hits that roof, it goes to a higher frequency, for example if i have 810000:81, as soon as the load goes to 81 it will switch to 918000, which is the next frequency ? And If i put 918000:90, it will stay on 918 mHz until the CPU load reaches 90? and then go to the next one? And the timer is just used to determine how long it takes to jump between the frequencies? So, what happens if I put 0 on the timers? Do they do it instantly? Does it take more battery life that way?

[MOD] Disable throttling when battery low

Disable crappy performance when below 40%!
I got sick and tired of my powerful shamu be throttled when my battery got low, making doing simple tasks laggy.
Here's a flashable zip (attached) to allow you to use the full power of your shamu. I take no responsibility if your device gets screwed up(it won't but if it does). Just flash it in recovery & reboot.
How to do this yourself or include it in your ROM/Kernel.
The file we will be editting is thermal-engine-shamu.conf
1. Find the first three sections, they will be the below three
2. Overwrite those sections with the below ones
Code:
[BAT-SOC-CPUFREQ]
algo_type monitor
sensor soc
sampling 5000
thresholds 100
thresholds_clr 99
actions cpu
action_info 1728000
[BAT-SOC-HOTPLUG]
algo_type monitor
sensor soc
sampling 5000
thresholds 100 100
thresholds_clr 99 99
actions hotplug_3 hotplug_2
action_info 1 1
[BAT-SOC-GPU]
algo_type monitor
sensor soc
sampling 5000
thresholds 100 100 100
thresholds_clr 99 99 99
actions gpu gpu gpu
action_info 500000000 389000000 300000000
These values explained.
- Thresholds is the battery percentage at which the throttling occurs. You might think it's weird to have this at 100 but it's how much percentage your battery has depleted. If you still don't get it, subtract the threshold from 100 and that's the percentage at which the throttling happens. In our case it happens at 0% or 1% and by that time your device is already dead.
Credits
- @Imoseyon
- @bbedward

will try this out for sure..

reyscott said:
will try this out for sure..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right now it seems to be working as I'm at 30% with no lag.

flashed it.. still at 87%.. will post results when below 20% ...

Will try it out.

reyscott said:
flashed it.. still at 87%.. will post results when below 20% ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would disabling BCL in the kernel achieve the same results? I do not get this throttling that you and others speak of because I read it was caused by BCL and disabled it in my kernel. Phone runs great all the way down to 3% or so.

Seems to be working for me so far. At 38%.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Can work on DP 5?

christianpeso said:
Would disabling BCL in the kernel achieve the same results? I do not get this throttling that you and others speak of because I read it was caused by BCL and disabled it in my kernel. Phone runs great all the way down to 3% or so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
are you on stock? i am on stock untouched kernel.. and ive been experiencing this everytime on stock whatever rom it is..

Whel, work for now on DP 5, when i have 15% update my status.

reyscott said:
are you on stock? i am on stock untouched kernel.. and ive been experiencing this everytime on stock whatever rom it is..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope. On Dirty Unicorns custom Rom using the built in kernel.

christianpeso said:
Nope. On Dirty Unicorns custom Rom using the built in kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some kernels have it some don't.

ronaldheld said:
Will try it out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
:good:
raptoro07 said:
Seems to be working for me so far. At 38%.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good to hear.
danxdarkte said:
Can work on DP 5?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah!
danxdarkte said:
Whel, work for now on DP 5, when i have 15% update my status.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
:good:

RatchetPanda said:
Some kernels have it some don't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, but that was not the original question at hand. The question was about your mod in this thread and does it accomplish the same thing by disabling BCL.

So far, so good at 38%.

christianpeso said:
Thanks, but that was not the original question at hand. The question was about your mod in this thread and does it accomplish the same thing by disabling BCL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Easily googlable.
"BCL polls the battery monitor system for various values such as voltage, current and temperature through the battery. This driver is meant to help prevent possible reboots, but with it removed on several devices we have seen no issues.
The way it prevents reboots is by setting thresholds and when the threshold is passed or tripped, it will throttle or unplug cores, which is detrimental to performance."
After reading this, I've inferred that this is the same as BCL.

Ok. "Work" in DP 5 with elemental X. But reduces The frecuency. Is normal?
Before at 15% the coree 2 and 3 is offline and the frequence is of 1.7, after the cores still online but the frequence is on 1.9

danxdarkte said:
Ok. "Work" in DP 5 with elemental X. But reduces The frecuency. Is normal?
Before at 15% the coree 2 and 3 is offline and the frequence is of 1.7, after the cores still online but the frequence is on 1.9
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which means that the throttling is gone. Throttling is turning cores off at lower percentages and keeping frequencies down not at regular.

RatchetPanda said:
Which means that the throttling is gone. Throttling is turning cores off at lower percentages and keeping frequencies down not at regular.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How far down can you discharge your battery before the random BCL flavored shutdowns occur?

rignfool said:
How far down can you discharge your battery before the random BCL flavored shutdowns occur?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I don't exactly know but I've gone all the way to 1% with bcl disabled and no weird shutdowns