[Sprint Samsung Galaxy S III] mw86:
I figured something out and am using different settings myself but based off of your original settings. I have determined a source of lag that can occur by your settings in the OP. its only a technicality. It happens on rare occasions. after watching and tinkering since we last spoke I pose a test for you.

we know this to be a fact. Based on design as soon as dual core is activated by any hotplug up threshold... if core 2 drops to no load 0% and core 1 is fully loaded 100% you get 50% load at the time. to get to the problem, if core 2 never gets a load again and load doesnt drop at all like down to the cpu speed to turn off dual core what happens is by your settings it locks at what i just described... 50% load. I saw it on a few frequencies for a few seconds sometimes. So truly if core 2 continues to stay unloaded and down threshold doesn't bring cpu speed to dual core off speed you will lag until something happens on core 2 adding 15% more total to cpu threshold this will make cpu continue calculating at a speed that isn't bogged down... but unless that happens it will not be able to ramp up or down or turn core 2 on or off unless one of those scenarios is met. If up threshold is never equal to or above 51% this scenario can't actually happen.

so this is what I am running now for myself after learning all the previous stuff with you.

your setup in OP

SAMPLING_RATE="60000"

UP_THRESHOLD="67"

DOWN_THRESHOLD="46"

FREQ_STEP="4"

SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR="1"

IGNORE_NICE_LOAD="1"

UP_THRESHOLD_HOTPLUG="68"

what I switched to

SAMPLING_RATE="12500" (I wanted extreme fast switching and readings, 10000min i read can cause cpu frequency switching probs since it may be faster than each core switches from a frequency so I read 12500 is lowest recommended to avoid switching delays from to small a value)

UP_THRESHOLD="49" (Picked specific for preventing dual core single thread maxed out from not allowing up or down threshold from moving until core 2 gets enough of a load or both core percent usages total the original up threshold)

DOWN_THRESHOLD="39" (i had to give more room to finish calculations of speeds bounce up and down unnecessarily)

FREQ_STEP="3" (i used this since for 96-2106mhz frequency range and frequency steps available i between come to close to 2.5% and since below that may hinder things I rounded up)

SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR="1" (used to be 4 but you changed to one as i did so sample rate is same as sample rate that is set and not multiplied by this value)

IGNORE_NICE_LOAD="1"

UP_THRESHOLD_HOTPLUG="99" (i set so single core 99% load activates dual core which is the least dual core activation I can lean towards.)

only lag I get now and you may notice too is if I/O is busy sometimes lag occurs when cpu usage goes down and minimum or near minimum speed is set... lag delay stops when cpu boosts even a bin or two above. this could be alleviated maybe by a parameter instead of just not using lower speeds for minimum. the cpu can really still benefit from lower speeds by power and cooling savings. Does such an I/O parameter exist. I would want one that just is a minimum cpu speed while I/O to sd card is busier than X amount. i dont know how that stuff is read but in any case would be useful since cpu usage and I/O being busy can occur on seperate times.

I get outstanding performance with the above and my goal is a high performance on demand which uses dual core only when necessary. I watch it and under dual or single core load under any percent usage it always gets to its target frequency with no delays.

I could see that before but couldn't think how to describe it. Is my point valid or am i missing something? Since we last spoke I agree fully with you and Ktoonsez that the cpu is in fact reading load properly on a basis of how many cores are active.

ramping hotpug up helped me in my goal and although up thresh is so low it seems to handle how I hoped... it will shoot into a frequency range that should finish work faster... not just be in a certain usage range but rather the fact it ramps up as soon as 50% load is reached helps keep cpu from boggin down. I see burst into upper cpu ranges and right back to idle rather than a cpu frequency a step or two down that would of finished task just a bit slower.

If i am wrong I can take that no prob, I just want to learn and with me watching cpu activity all the time on Cool tool this is the conclusion I came to. I don't know if this is still the diametrically opposed idea from before but I like what its changed to. Thank you for your advice and its really been nice conversing about this unique governor and the way it handles.