yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Nexus 7 Original Development] ashclepdia:
I am pretty sure it isn't "sticking" due to tegra dvfs..

If you want to set the max cpu speed lower, your can set a cap. I believe it may be done the same way i was doing on faux kernel, i was editing sys/module/cputegra/parameters/"cpu max" (i can't remember the name exactly of that last part, but there is only two files in /parameters folder and only one takes a freq value) i would edit mine to 11500000 for a Max cpu speed of 1.15ghz for example. Even if you use an app to set above that value you put, it will not go above your cap. Your must set that after every reboot or put it in init.d for it to set every boot.

Apologies if it is not the same with this kernel, tho i suspect it is. I will check when i go on break unless someone checks before i do.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] yalouf:
I have wifi issue with r5

when tablet goes into deep sleep, wifi ils ultra slow afterwards, and i have to reboot to get it back to normal...

Envoyé depuis mon Nexus 7 avec Tapatalk
[Nexus 7 Original Development] question.com:
Any particular reason why the app says only one core is online?
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
4 cores suck a lot of power, so they autohotplug when nothing cpu intensive is happening.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] geevee11:
It reads the cpu states in real time.

Try pulling the notification bar up and down. A core or two will go online.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Here's some info on timer_slack:

http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=30566492&postcount=111

Soo.... I still have no idea. :p
[Nexus 7 Original Development] joaquinf:
That sounds about right for me

lol i was looking for information but i had no luck, that's better than nothing i guess :p thanks for the info.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Original reason we kept the frequencies separate is because it made it easier to shorten the others (with the exception of g_h_l) by dividing by 1000 so that they would all be only 2 digits in length, which I kind of prefer to communicate it. I'm not married to it though, so whatever you guys think makes more sense at this point. :)
[Nexus 7 Original Development] The Gingerbread Man:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

So we need to see what ever it means by poll and select and cgroup. I dont reckon its that important, the only thing missing which could be of use to tweak currently is to set the target load so the CPU isn't scaling so high, if that was set to somewhere between 65 and 80 we would see real battery savings so the cpu isn't always trying to get high speeds
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Edit: I just reread Metallice's posts and think it scales in order to meet the target_load. So if we're talking stock values, eg. at 900MHz if the load is 75% then it scales down until the load is at 90%, say at 500MHz. Scaling up I guess works the opposite, between 91-98% it would then scale up until load was at 90%; or if there is a sudden rise to the max load of 99-100% that's the trigger to jump to the hsf. That's where above_hispeed_delay comes in because you don't want it to jump for just a momentary spike that resolves itself. Lowering target_loads to something like 65 would have the effect of a higher freq being used, if I'm right, since it would want to scale until the load was only 65% which should mean a higher freq, and would scale up when it was anything between 65% and the go_hispeed_load. I was thinking a target_load of 85% so that we'd have a little more room to play with go_hispeed_load, but I don't think lowering it much more would help.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] The Gingerbread Man:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

I think 15/95/ (HSF) 0.8 or 1.0 or 1.3/30/15 so you end up with 15/95/0.8/30/15 could be easier but you and yellowdie came up with it so its up to you really I guess :)
[Nexus 7 Original Development] k29er:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

In most of the kernels I try trickster mod shows both the same at 85 but you say they should not be?
[Nexus 7 Original Development] joaquinf:
Right now i'm charging my tablet so i can't judge battery life but, i'm trying 15/95/1000/45/15 @416 and target_loads @ 85 and everything is running smooth. I've played NOVA and NFS without any lag and UI is smooth as well. Screenshot of cpu states in a minute :)

Edit: https://www.dropbox.com/sc/guksor3j6t14dsp/t_WcJN7A9W
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Nope that's completely fine depending on what patches they've got merged into their interactive governor. See here:

http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36966801&postcount=3393
[Nexus 7 Original Development] wlee2:
Anyone tried out 0/96/1000/45/15 @ 520?

i think i read the using ahd as 0 somewhere in this thread lol...
[Nexus 7 Original Development] The Gingerbread Man:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Hmm yes you might be right I was thinking along the lines of if target load is 65 so calling 65% of total CPU power from 1.3 ghz to load apps it would use less power to do so and then it might use less battery but as I dont really understand the complete process properly I don't really know

---------- Post added at 01:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 AM ----------

If you wanna type your setting like that for high speed freq you should use 1.0 or 0.8. X.0 to reflect GHz and 1.x to reflect closest to 100 mhz so 13000mhz /1.3ghz would be 1.3
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Yeah as long as doing that doesn't confuse people more than just tacking it on the end would, I'm all for it. ;)

Nice. So lowering the target_loads should make it favor ramping just a little bit higher, but the wider margin between target_loads and go_hispeed_load should help keep it from jumping unnecessarily while giving it good leeway to ramp up appropriately on its own. Now I'm just questioning if a higher above_hispeed_delay would be wise to help keep it from jumping unnecessarily at little spikes. Try 30000 maybe and see if it still feels good? For whatever difference 0.015 seconds makes. :p

Yeah franco said he meant to set it at 0, but we did some testing today and we all felt it was better at 15000.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] joaquinf:
Judging by the number i'm sure you meant above_highspeed_delay :p i'm changing it to 30 as i type, let's see how it feels

EDIT: it feels smooth-er? maybe? i'm using the g+ app, doing some internet browsing and i'm about to play SG:DZ just to check the gaming performance and i'll post the cpu states screenshot in 15 mins
[Nexus 7 Original Development] The Gingerbread Man:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Haha precisely the amount of time for a micro lag :sly:
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Touché :laugh:
[Nexus 7 Original Development] wlee2:
so why not 0 then?

less micro lag.....?
[Nexus 7 Original Development] joaquinf:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Ok so here it is. This is a screenshot of the cpu usage since boot with 30/95/1000/45/15 @416 and target_loads @ 85. Most of the time I played shadowgun and modern combat without any lag whatsoever. Somehow this setup feels smoother and I couldn't perceive any lag or stuttering on menus or app drawer. I think we are getting closer to what could be a perfect setup, I can't comment on batt life though because im charging my tablet.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] The Gingerbread Man:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Basicly he's telling the CPU to wait 0.03 of a second to wait before jumping up to the next higher speed, by the time the kernel has thought about it and waited its 0.03 of a second the task ,y he completed so the CPU didn't need to go faster. By having the value of 0 your telling the kernel to tell the CPU ramp up "go as fast as you want just get the job done asap" but the task may not need so much power, so it wasted battery by going up a speed when really it wasn't needed. Go back to page 312 and osmosis has a good post there and a link to another good post which explains what we are talking about if your struggling to follow

---------- Post added at 02:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 AM ----------

Try again with 800mhz go high speed freq so the CPU has plenty more steps to ramp up or to see if it lags, you may save some battery this way
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
*Waiting 0.03 s before jumping to hsf once it exceeds ghl.

800 made an ugly gap at 900 when I tried it before, which lead me to the conclusion that 900 is probably the lowest we'd want hsf; but it's worth trying again now that we've adjusted the target_loads to see if anything's changed. :)
[Nexus 7 Original Development] joaquinf:
I'm on it. Thanks for the suggestion. M

My thoughts so far: I do feel the difference in terms of smoothness, there are definitely some stuttering and hiccups while navigating trhough UI. Most noticeably scrolling down the stream on g+ app. I'm going to do play some gaimg to see if that's affected too

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------

I agree. 800 seems way too low. It isn't laggy as hell but definitely less smooth that i'd like to see

These are the cpu stats after playing some NOVA and NFS and using the g+ app for a while

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

I've bumped it to 900 and it definitely makes the difference. I guess that's indeed the lowest we can go with hsf
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Yeah that's the gap! :good: :)

Do you prefer 900 or 1000? Does lowering ahd to 15000 help with either of those?

How high can you make ahd while keeping it smooth now that target_loads is 85? 30000, 45000, 60000? That's where our battery savings will lie. There and if we can get away with 900MHz smoothly. Lowering mst to 30000 is the last option, but I wouldn't want it much lower than that either.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] joaquinf:
Ok, 1000 is definitely a bit more snappier but it could be less batt friendly considering that in average 25% of the time the cpu is clocked at that freq. Setting ahd to 15 does helps, maybe at the point i don't feel any difference between 1000 and 900 ... it could be placebo though :p

I'm going to try 60/95/900/45/15 @416 and t_l 85 and going down a step if find it laggy

EDIT: no luck with that, major lag when opening and scrolling through the app drawer going down to 45/95/900/45/15 @416 and t_l 85

EDIT2: ughh 45 is even worse than 60 :p i'm going for 30/95/900/45/15 @416 and t_l 85
[Nexus 7 Original Development] 1pop23:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

So right now we are at

15/95/900/45/15@416

Or

15/95/900/30/15@416

Or

30/95/900/45/15@416

Or

30/95/900/30/15@416

?
[Nexus 7 Original Development] joaquinf:
I'm testing 30/95/900/45/15 @416 and t_l 85 however i found that h_f @ 1000 was a sweet spot performance-wise
[Nexus 7 Original Development] 1pop23:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

I'd have to agree, while to the naked eye 900 and 1000 doesn't seem that different, while testing there was a small but noticeable difference between the two performance wise in my eyes

Also what's going on with the load again? Why have it at 85¿
[Nexus 7 Original Development] afbengochea:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Just wanted to thank you for the great kernel. Been reading all day (studying for board exam) and got great on screen time. I'm sure it'll get a lot more since I'm only at 14 percent. Using rascarlo plus Franco kernel
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
15/95/900/45/15@416 and t_l 85 was definitely the one I was interested in.

And if that was okay, then 15/95/900/30/15@416 and t_l 85.

And if both of those sucked, then I was thinking start at 60/95/1000/45/15@416 and t_l 85 and step a_h_d down again to find the highest smooth, then try to reduce m_s_t to 30 again for that to see if it's still smooth. :D

---------- Post added 21st January 2013 at 12:02 AM ---------- Previous post was 20th January 2013 at 11:44 PM ----------

You'll notice go_hispeed_load is still 95 (default 99 on AOSP stock; 98 on franco). target_loads is the new tunable we've thrown into the mix and set to 85 (default 90). Check back 2 pages for my explanation. :)
[Nexus 7 Original Development] 1pop23:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Oops I had posted 96 ghl. Will check that thank you
[Nexus 7 Original Development] joaquinf:
Is not that 15/95/900/30/15 sucked but 15/95/900/45/15 is definitely smoother and 30/95/1000/45/15 @416 and target_loads @ 85 is the best one so far. I'm going to switch to the latter and try it all day tomorrow at work to see how is the batt life with that one. I'm going off to bed because is 11:11 here and i have to wake up early tomorrow. See you guys later. Take care

Thanks for the fun testing evening :)
[Nexus 7 Original Development] 1pop23:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

My battery is current at 54% and I'm now switching to these settings from the defaults. Will report back
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Man, thank you for being a great guinea pig/scientist. :p This was a blast. :)

So up for testing are the following:

30/95/1.0/45/15 @ 416 + t_l 85

Vs.

30/95/1.0/30/15 @ 416 + t_l 85

I'm off to bed too. Night all! :D
[Nexus 7 Original Development] radeon_x:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Alright, I've read back pages and pages and am trying to follow these discussions.... One thing I can't figure out is where to set the target_load value. I don't see that option in the f.Ku app???
[Nexus 7 Original Development] poondog:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Use trickstermod
[Nexus 7 Original Development] akitos:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

What scheduler and governorto be use?? Row and interactive??
[Nexus 7 Original Development] poondog:
Yes
[Nexus 7 Original Development] Mr. Steve:
Testing out that first one now, will report back.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] 1pop23:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

So here we go

First part of usage: 100%-54%

15/95/1/45/15@416 t_l 90

Standard usage, youtube, web browsing, email, forums, no gaming

Everything ran smooth with little ui stutter here and there.

Battery seemed fine and died at a slow pace. Everything was great!

Second part of usage: 54%-3%

30/95/1/45/15@416 t_l 85

Medium gaming with NFS and crossme, along with the basic use of YouTube, email, web, etc...

Ui stutter seemed to be less and things in general seemed to be a tad smoother. Gaming on NFS was smooth but had the normal lag in high activity areas but I chalk that down to not being tegra optimized. No lag or stutter in crossme. Battery also seemed to be the same but I feel I cannot comment there as much has I have not given the settings a full battery cycle.

Also, while I was typing this up, I started to have some keyboard lag. Could be the tapatalk HD app but still something to note

Screenshots:

The small cut in the 50% range is when I started using the second settings

Total amount of screen usage time with brightness at about 30%

CPU scales since restart with second CPU settings.

Screen was on a good portion of that time
[Nexus 7 Original Development] Short Viking:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

Is the idea that idleing on 'hispeed freq' saves battery?

From my research thats what's happening with stock settings. And it seems that it steps down on loads not exceeding 'hispeed freq' until it hits hispeed, stepping gradually up towards the 'hispeed freq' in downward peaks.

Im just wondering why 'min sample time' being greater than 'timer rate' making it "stuck" on 'hispeed freq'. I'm thinking this is done intentional to prevent peaking steps?

I'm probably not explaining this very well so ask if im making myself unclear, but I'm just trying to figgure out why 'hispeed freq' is prefered over stepping down to say 100mHz at little/idle load.

Thanks :)
[Nexus 7 Original Development] akitos:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Tried the first one. Nfs is a little little laggy. Especially when cars collide.maybe i need to let the settings "sink" in??
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Don't think that's how any of those work. ;)

For how scaling works now see here: http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?p=36974153#post36974153

For how the other tunables work in general see here: http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=33161912

Did you set target_loads to 85? If so and it still wasn't feeling good then try 15/95/1.0/45/15 @ 416 + t_l 85
[Nexus 7 Original Development] Short Viking:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

That makes more sense. Must have missed that post when i was reading through everything.

I just judged from how my device responded to changing those values.

I will try changing the target load inastead, and see how that goes. :)

Sorry for asking silly questions, I'm just eager to learn, but sometimes I miss details here and there.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] DeFcOn:
I don't understand what number for what parameter. Can somebody help me? :confused:
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Don't worry about it. Always happy to help those who want to read and learn. :)

Here's my explanation of what I think is going on at t_l 85 and why that improves things a little in case you missed that too:

http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36974851&postcount=3424

And that's pretty much where we're still at with our testing. :good:
[Nexus 7 Original Development] The Gingerbread Man:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Huh you guys had a good night, shame our timezones are all so different I was asleep for most out this. I'm using 30/95/1.0/30/15@416 and it seems great so far even with target load at 90 as I don't own tricksters app
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Oh that's no problem at all since it's all in the sysfs. We just can't set it on boot without init.d that way (which means we can't on the N7 because Franco keeps forgetting to add the run-parts call to enable init.d). ;)

To get in on the fun, all the interactive tunables live under /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/interactive/, so:

echo 80 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/interactive/target_loads

Or you could probably get away with editing the file in a File Explorer of some kind. :D:good:
[Nexus 7 Original Development] joaquinf:
This ^^ or you can just install the free version of trickster mod from the playstore, which let you change that value :p

EDIT: Back on topic, today i'm feeling a terrible lag on the UI specially swiping trough the desktop screens, app drawer and animations in general :( i've switched to 15/95/1.0/45/15 @ 416 + t_l 85 although is a bit better, the lag is still present :(
[Nexus 7 Original Development] Skyfall007:
how many hours are you(all) able to play games?
[Nexus 7 Original Development] Sveke:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

No matter what I do my screen seems "sticky". Just not smooth as I thought a quad core device would be.

I'm baffled.

Sent from my Nexus 7
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Well.. :( Guess our only option is to try closer to the defaults again...

15/98/1.2/45/15@416 with t_l back to the default 90.

If that's too harsh on battery we could try 15/98/1.1/30/15@416 and see how that goes.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] 1pop23:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

I'll use the second settings all day so we can cover both
[Nexus 7 Original Development] xI mEzMeRiZe Ix:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Are all of these changes to the tunables meant to improve random jitter in the UI or improve gaming performance?

No matter what settings I use, the device feels just a bitter laggier than my Gnex. I don't really play any hardcore games, so if changing these tunables is all about improving FPS in games, I'll stop changing them every time someone posts a new set of numbers. Nothing has fixed the random sluggishness in the UI for me.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Pessimist. ;) The focus is on the UI smoothness. joaquinf is then testing to see how they do for gaming as well. Ideally we're going for both.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] tomeks:
Odp: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

kernel wakelock - nexus 3g

hope that in the next release correction for the 3g driver will be merged

otherwise great kernel, thank you

Wysyłane z mojego Nexus 7 za pomocą Tapatalk 2
[Nexus 7 Original Development] xI mEzMeRiZe Ix:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Haha I'm a major pessimist for almost anything.

Sent from my Nexus 7
[Nexus 7 Original Development] Xentar712:
Kexec for MultiRom

Anyone know if the Kexec mod for Ubuntu support is being worked on? I saw it was discussed a while back but nothing else. Or does that fall into the stupid patches category mentioned in the OP? :)
[Nexus 7 Original Development] Sveke:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Just curious since it hasn't been mentioned in months.

Is the hope of screen color calibration lost?

Would love to have a trinity blue tint to my N7.

Sent from my Nexus 7
[Nexus 7 Original Development] 1pop23:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Here's an early tell on 15/98/1.1/30/15@416 t_l 90

Battery seems to be dying pretty fast. I did stream 2 songs through a Bluetooth speaker but that shouldn't have dropped the battery this much. Things seem smooth. Little bit of jitter while scrolling through widgets/app pages.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Yeah and that's basically stock. Sh*t is hopeless. :eek:

Nah that's been brought up many times in the last month. The answer is still no because it's a different type of IPS than the N4. The only glimmer of hope is that Google themselves adjusted the colors for the N7 in stock JB4.2.1, making them slightly more reddish; so one would think if they're able to do it, so should we be.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] 1pop23:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Yhea for the time being I think I'm gonna go back to 30/95/1/45/15@416 t_l 85. I had the best luck with that
[Nexus 7 Original Development] wlee2:
I noticed alot of people using 416 as the Gpu speed any notice much side effects of running 520 or higher?

i been running 30/95/1/45/15@520

and switched to 416 before, maybee i am not very sensitive to gpu changes but i didnt notice anything lol..:p
[Nexus 7 Original Development] 1pop23:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

I personally run at 484 or 520. Normal ui stuff you don't see much of a change, for heavy games how ever you get more frames. To me its quite noticeable, we are running 416 right now to help Franco optimize the settings for the kernel so we get the best "out-of-the-box" settings I'm terms of performance and battery
[Nexus 7 Original Development] ROFLkopter:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Todays.

Haven't played much games, apart from one. Done a lot of browsing though. I guess having a LWP doesn't help the battery, but I do love the Lonely Tree LWP :)

Sent From My AOSPA3.+/franco.Kernel Powered Nexus 7 With XDA Premium
[Nexus 7 Original Development] ROFLkopter:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

Oh, and I took this with 6% battery remaining, but it wasn't from a full charge (which I guess doesn't help!) GPU@416

Sent From My AOSPA3.+/franco.Kernel Powered Nexus 7 With XDA Premium
[Nexus 7 Original Development] wlee2:
Does Min CPU fre make much of a difference with the Race to idle theory?

also max companion core Freq, because it seems rather focused on Governor settings i would have though these settings would effect UI performances as well?
[Nexus 7 Original Development] 1pop23:
Re: [KERNEL][GPL][19 JAN] franco.Kernel - r39

This I am not sure about. Maybe someone else will be able to answer that.
[Nexus 7 Original Development] xtcme:
Stupid question... Is there a GPU adjust somewhere I'm not seeing with r39... Or do I DL a program and if so which one is best thx

Anyone?
[Nexus 7 Original Development] osm0sis:
Race to idle is only an issue when you've got a low screen off max. So we don't have that problem at all