yank555 wrote:Great news, thanx for confirming that
JP.
You're welcome
yank555 wrote:Great news, thanx for confirming that
JP.
yank555 wrote:jdidtht wrote:yank555 wrote:[quote="jdidtht"]I've noticed the min cpu freq cycling on this kernel , it never rests, constant one core scaling at idle reguardless if mp is on or off and or gov
You mean scaling_min moves around ? If so, that's normal, that's Samsung's touchboost implementation, it changes scaling_min on touch with 2 levels, one touch = low level (1.2GHz stock) and multiple touches = high (1.7GHz stock). That's a plain in-kernel implementation, and it's hardcoded by default.
CPU Hardlimit has tunables for both steps, they are way too high imho. Sysfs paths should be linked to 1-2 pages back.
If you don't mean that, then I'm not sure to get you right ...
JP.
EDIT : Except if you are on interactive, where that's interactive's hasty way to reach it's ideal freq (or whatever the tunable is called), I've calmed it down in my CM kernel using its tunables
, min never stops moving ever even at idle. Thats not normal. Itss always scaling. Every kernel I've ever used the min freq at rest will stay at rest (300) until its told to do so. This will never rest, it will be 300 1194 1728 300 2226 300 1194 1728 over and over at idle, it should be sitting at 300 while not being used. No touch ,no apps, and constantly up an down. I'll flash the newest build to see if fixed.. Core 0 should be at 300 at idle with screen on and the other three cores will be offline. So the issue is at idle its never actually idling, core 0 is scaling for no reason while the other three cores are offline. Their is no screen touching on my end, its just never ending scaling at idle.
Latest is doing the same for me.
jdidtht wrote:Thats what I'm saying, it is weird. As for dvfs , yes I do have it disabled, and I mean its basically completely gone in tweaked ROM, including the areas in ssrm.jar as well. This kernel, and one other that Im pretty sure is using portions of your source does the same thing. I basically wanted to see if anyone else could confirm idle freqs at rest or if its just me.
chmod 444 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
chmod 444 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
chmod 444 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
chmod 444 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
yank555 wrote:jdidtht wrote:Thats what I'm saying, it is weird. As for dvfs , yes I do have it disabled, and I mean its basically completely gone in tweaked ROM, including the areas in ssrm.jar as well. This kernel, and one other that Im pretty sure is using portions of your source does the same thing. I basically wanted to see if anyone else could confirm idle freqs at rest or if its just me.
Just to be certain we're talking about the same thing, we actually are talking about scaling_min (as min. CPU freq.), or are we talking scaling_current (as in CPU's real clock at a given time) ?
Hence if you :
- Code: Select all
chmod 444 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
chmod 444 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
chmod 444 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
chmod 444 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
and those rights stay this way unchanged, userspace won't be able to mess with it.
That's the only way to know for sure where to look, kernel or ROM/apps.
But having scaling min jump around without the device being touched shouldn't come from the kernel, my CM kernel is 100% in line in that regard, and it does not do that. So if this does happen, I'd bet it's coming from userspace.
JP.
jdidtht wrote:Julian Jeremiah wrote:For this mine's are pretty in good shape; core0 stays on 300Mhz and core 1/2/3 stays offline (just staring on the screen while not touching it)
Lucky man you are, I'll hopefully sort it out here shortly.
Julian Jeremiah wrote:For this mine's are pretty in good shape; core0 stays on 300Mhz and core 1/2/3 stays offline (just staring on the screen while not touching it)
jdidtht wrote:Julian Jeremiah wrote:For this mine's are pretty in good shape; core0 stays on 300Mhz and core 1/2/3 stays offline (just staring on the screen while not touching it)
Lucky man you are, I'll hopefully sort it out here shortly.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests