Bitsum Community Forum

General Category => Process Lasso => Topic started by: bertie97 on August 10, 2012, 02:23:15 PM

Title: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 10, 2012, 02:23:15 PM
I searched but couldn't find a thread on this.  I was a bit surprised that no-one is talking about this interesting feature (or is it that my search terms are terrible?).
My understanding is that disabling core parking whilst Probalance is active is going to help with loads & responsiveness.  Having a few cores, this seems to be good news.  :)

I have opened the Options / Advanced menu to see the Park Control dialog which gives me options of power plan & CPU parking en/dis -abling.
My first thought was that I want it disabled in Hi Perf to match the likely probalance activity (I have disabled CP during Probalance activity & I am using the PL energy saver capability).
I am a little confused to find that I cannot set CP relative to power plan as this seems to contradict the probalance setting.
If I set Hi Perf to disabled I cannot then set power saver to enabled to match the likely work environment.
Or that is how it appears.  If power saver is configured to allow core parking, Hi Perf will not allow me to save a disabled CP state with the radio buttons.
This is using x.79 beta on 7x64


Attached images show how I configured each plan the last with yellow Hi-lite shows Hi Perf has reverted to old 'enabled' state after reviewing each setting.  I had hit 'apply' when I set HP to CP disabled.


Am I misreading this option somehow?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 11, 2012, 06:13:14 PM
First, I do see the issue with the dialogs. I am looking into that for the next update. They may not correctly reflect the Enabled/Disabled state. 100 means disabled and 50 means enabled. The checkboxes can apparently get out of sync given a certain set of behaviors. Some systems don't even support core parking, and those also need to be more properly identified.

There may also be some disparity between the various functions of the product. In the end, many things can be accomplished most simply by adjusting power profiles - and the automation of such is a big part of Process Lasso. However, it still supports those who would do things differently.

Please hold as I work here and I will evaluate this in more depth in the near future. Thanks much for the report! I have a relatively good/semi-major update coming to cap of v6.0, before moving on to v6.1.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 12, 2012, 04:24:54 AM
Thanks for the info.  I'm using a 1090T & that does have the CP feature for Win7 & 8 to play with I believe.

I have recently read in forums core-parking affects gaming performance.  I will say that having implemented the PL settings stuff is moving a lot quicker.  PC is now faster than I am & keeps beating me   :o
So whilst it may not be quite finished as a PL function it is making a difference. 
I am kinda glad it may still be 'semi-beta' on the dialogs as it means I am not so dumb as to be unable to figure out which radio button to hit.

PL is full of surprises actually, you seem to have added much more than is implied by the manual.  The implications of some of the capabilities are a lot further reaching than I saw the historical PL releases.
PL is becoming a must-have geek toy as well as a vital tool I think.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: TfH on August 12, 2012, 11:35:56 AM
@bertie
Nice to see fellow 1090T user :) If I understood correctly your post, 1090T don't support Core Parking (in AMD it's called Power Gating). If you like to disable "Core Parking" go in your BIOS and disable C6 (if your mobo have that option). I might remember wrong (waked few minutes ago, 6.30pm here) but I remember reading somewhere that disabling that option can have undesired effects to SSD/HDD performance. Don't ask me why, I don't remember.

So don't take this reply as "pro" reply, being half wake and having first Java cuppa :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 12, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
I might remember wrong (waked few minutes ago, 6.30pm here) but I remember reading somewhere that disabling that option can have undesired effects to SSD/HDD performance. Don't ask me why, I don't remember.
From ThrottleStop manual
Quote
The C3 Auto Demotion and C1 Auto Demotion options have been shown to increase 4K Write speeds on SSD hard drives significantly. When running on battery power, leave these unchecked and set the C1 button in the picture as high as it can go so your CPU can enter the deeper C sleep states and conserve power.
When you Google this"ThrottleStop c6 ssd"
And my friend from tieba.
http://tieba.baidu.com/p/1666490835
Yes, disable c6 can increasing SSD reading/writing speeds significantly, but HDD?
No, as I cannot search about it.

Quote
So don't take this reply as "pro" reply, being half wake and having first Java cuppa :)
+1
But it is 2012-8-13 0:51:25 at here  ;D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: TfH on August 12, 2012, 03:53:43 PM
Thanks Ben :)

OT: I always wake up between 5pm->7pm and go to sleep between 8am->10am :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 13, 2012, 03:06:27 AM
Thanks Ben :)

OT: I always wake up between 5pm->7pm and go to sleep between 8am->10am :)
Some time, as I always getting a clear mind on midnight   ;)
I cannot having a clear mind in a noisy environment, I need a cool, quiet place and not be harassed by other people.
-----
Just making some correction, they are disabling c3/c6, c1e and EIST to get the normal SSD speed(by increasing temperature and disabling TurboBoost on some processors also)
http://forum.techinferno.com/storage/171-maximum-ssd-performance-your-laptop-throttlestop-registry-mod.html
But AMD processors can getting back the normal SSD speed by doing this or not, I don't know  ;D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 13, 2012, 09:06:53 AM
Thanks guys.
I have heard that Core-parking is a Win7 function that affects multi-cores - AMD & Intel.  I saw a post specifically about reg hacks for CP, AMD & WoW. 
So I figured it must apply to my PC.  I do not know definitely though.

I have noticed since disabling CP in probalance that the PC is faster (illusion? Maybe PL#6 is just doing a better job), it certainly seems much quicker in ToW2 than it was.  Even when I am in a <200 units battle it's smooth.  (The game sims every bullet/shell fired, trajectory & collision/richochet event - so the CPU takes a serious thrashing.)

I am not sure about the ref to SSD settings - no SSD yet, tho it might not be long, so I don't know how the config will pan put.
I am using a 890fx btw, so I have a few settings to trawl through.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 13, 2012, 11:31:49 AM
Thanks guys.
I have heard that Core-parking is a Win7 function that affects multi-cores - AMD & Intel.  I saw a post specifically about reg hacks for CP, AMD & WoW. 
So I figured it must apply to my PC.  I do not know definitely though.

I have noticed since disabling CP in probalance that the PC is faster (illusion? Maybe PL#6 is just doing a better job), it certainly seems much quicker in ToW2 than it was.  Even when I am in a <200 units battle it's smooth.  (The game sims every bullet/shell fired, trajectory & collision/richochet event - so the CPU takes a serious thrashing.)
PS:This is not a "pro" answers, if any wrong, please point out the wrong place and teach me, thank  ;)
Yes, if you using software that required very low latency real time processing of data like a DAW(Just Google "Sonar Core-parking" and you can find about it), you can hear the difference(pop sound gone, as example)
And smooth like you say.
Just read about it
http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php

Quote
If you look at your CPU utilization and see 15%, that is actually the percentage of time the CPU was active within a relatively large interval (usually 1 second). Actual CPU utilization most often occurs in micro-bursts where the CPU is fully consumed for a few nanoseconds or microseconds. You want those bursts to execute as fast as possible, and this is why all power saving technologies, including frequency scaling, incur *some* performance hit. This is also why a faster CPU does matter, even if you typically don't utilize 100% of available CPU time over a larger interval.

Quote
Additionally, I've found Windows CPU Parking to be excessively aggressive by default. In one test bed, an AMD Bulldozer platform (8150), the scheduling problems were *very* apparent. Turning off CPU Parking causes an immediate boost in responsiveness, particularly for the virtual machines and multimedia applications.

For how I looking about it

Remember how a Processor working like multi-tasking?
Switching between the threads by following the priority in a short-time so it work like multi-tasking, but it need time to switching it also.
When you disable Core-parking, the kernel will putting all threads over all processor.
So the game-threads that required to processing finish ASAP will finish processed faster by reduced the wait time to switching to its turn.
And when you parking the core, you need time to unparking it also, that need time also.
If the CPU utilization are jumping between the percent it need to parking 1 core, and unparking 1 core, what happen?
Increased wait time for it.

Most people that playing BF3 and disabling Core-parking found that, Wow! the responsiveness boost!
And some guys testing on WinRar Benchmark found that, disabling Core-parking increasing the performance
http://bitsum.com/forum/index.php/topic,1378.msg6803.html#msg6803
(https://bitsum.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1378.0;attach=252;image)
(https://bitsum.com/images/parking_benchmark_winrar_beta.jpg)

PS again:This is not a "pro" answers, if any wrong, please point out the wrong place and teach me, thank  ;)
And decreasing when having 2 real core, 2 fake-core/HT, because they(the 2 thread on 1 core) will fight for the only resource(1 core).
As HT is reducing the idle time of core, reducing the total time of a mission, but increasing the time 1 thread need to processed finish.

If you disabling the Core-parking, the fake core will unparked, so the threads will fight for it, especially when the CPU utilization are nearly 100%
So what you get when the software supporting 2 multi-thread, they just maybe most of time putting it on the same core and fighting for it while the other cpu are idling.

Many gamer found that disabling HT in BIOS can get boost for supporting 2/4 multi-thread game, so when you having less than 4 real core, please compare youself the game performance enable/disable Core-parking, and enable/disable HT in BIOS
------
And some guys out that misunderstand about HT, Core-parking and the software/games are supporting multi-thread of not.
They watching the CPU utilization of the fake core/HT when playing online game, by increasing the people in a scene of the game, the CPU utilization increased, so the OS unpark fake-core/HT and they saw the fake-core are using and say that.

Heh!It prove that the online game can using the HT!!! So this game support multi-thread for 4 core, and it can using fake-core/HT to boost it!!!

But the picture show that, the software/game Total CPU utilization is not more than 50%, its meaning that it is supporting multi-thread for 2 core.
------
And I wanna ask about multi-thread, how I can know that it is supporting multi-thread for x core?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 13, 2012, 01:44:37 PM
As I am running AMD I have real physical cores - no HT.
This is one reason I find PL useful as I am able to pipeline processes to what would possibly be unused cores with some software.
Finding out that newly written s/w isn't targeted at multi-core - such as BFCs Combat Mission - is something that I believe PL can ameliorate.
I spent a while testing ToW as I had issues (see my post about Theatre of War).  Being able to offer more cores than the code initially targets seems to help. 

I wonder how difficult it would be to hand-off 'surplus' queued threads from a prog written for a single core to multiple cores.  ???
By which I mean have software written for a single core access multi cores as one 'big' single core.
I don't know enough about header flags etc to hypothesize in any depth, but it would be cool to do it for stuff that is coded for 1-2 cores when the CPU has 4, 6, 8, 12 cores etc..
Spoof core ID on the fly to the process queue perhaps? 

PL 7 to the rescue?   :D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 14, 2012, 04:40:29 AM
As I am running AMD I have real physical cores - no HT.
This is one reason I find PL useful as I am able to pipeline processes to what would possibly be unused cores with some software.
Finding out that newly written s/w isn't targeted at multi-core - such as BFCs Combat Mission - is something that I believe PL can ameliorate.
I spent a while testing ToW as I had issues (see my post about Theatre of War).  Being able to offer more cores than the code initially targets seems to help. 
Ya, decreasing the time to start processing it.

Quote
I wonder how difficult it would be to hand-off 'surplus' queued threads from a prog written for a single core to multiple cores.  ???
By which I mean have software written for a single core access multi cores as one 'big' single core.
I don't know enough about header flags etc to hypothesize in any depth, but it would be cool to do it for stuff that is coded for 1-2 cores when the CPU has 4, 6, 8, 12 cores etc..
Spoof core ID on the fly to the process queue perhaps? 
PS:This is not a "pro" answers, if any wrong, please point out the wrong place and teach me, thank  ;)

Software support multi-threading is having a vague meaning, but mostly the meaning is, 1 job(physics engine, for example) can be distribution to 4 thread, or even 8 thread(or more) to every core processing it.

Like you having a cake, the job is finish eating it, so you cutting the cake into 8 piece(threads), and giving other people(core) to finish it  ;D
But some jobs you cannot cut it, like you are hungry, you cannot call other people eating foods to fill your stomach  ;D
So it must be finish by 1 person(core)

And some is hard to cutting it as many problem is stopping them cutting it(time, money etc)

And core parking is doing this
Quote
Additionally, parking CPUs can potentially reduce core thrashing - when a thread is swapped between cores unnecessarily, causing a performance hit
Like L2/L3, when only 2 core reading/writing data from/to L2/L3, it is fine, but how about 8 core?
Many threads are swapped between cores unnecessarily, so the core need reread/write data from/to L2/L3, and causing cache miss to other threads as the capacity is small.

Quote
By which I mean have software written for a single core access multi cores as one 'big' single core.
Nope, the frequency of core are same, so it meaning they running with same speed(frequency), at the same time.
So how can you making it faster by adding it?

The only way is increasing frequency, decreasing the cache miss etc(Sorry, lack of knowledge  :P)
So it is on the Processor side, and software written for using Instruction set of Processor, increasing threads to deceasing cache miss etc.

Many newbie thinking like this, and lie by profiteer.
Hei! see this processor, it containing 8 core, so you know how fast is it?
2Ghz Per core, so when you add it, it become 2x8=16Ghz  ;D

Quote
PL 7 to the rescue?   :D
Nope, only the Windows CPU scheduler that assigning threads to which core can doing this.
And PL target is getting the responsiveness back to user, decreasing waste of resources(core) can helping it  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 14, 2012, 08:30:48 AM
It wasn't a question of speed that concerned me, just the 'appearance' of available bandwidth across a 'single' core.
i.e. if one created a virtual wideband core from multiple cores in terms of available addressing for the routines being piped to it.
As with your cake (& now I'm hungry)  :) My understanding is that multi-core allows one to hand off processes to dedicated cores.  (So a dev can allocate each software component to a set of physical resources within his codebase.)  Then it all has to be synchronized to events.

It would be nice if software specifically written for 1 or 2 cores could deliberately take full advantage of all available cores in an optimal way.
Taking an 8 core & creating 2 virtual cores (each having access to 4 real cores) could provide extra bandwidth for the software in my (uninformed) theory.

I don't know how you would cope with things like load-balancing, queueing & synchronicity of processes as I am not a software genius  :P  this is just a bit of lateral thinking.

This would also have to include your note
Quote
Many threads are swapped between cores unnecessarily, so the core need reread/write data from/to L2/L3, and causing cache miss to other threads as the capacity is small.
within it's scope.

.....So PL7+ needs to hack Win CPU scheduler  ;D

Now wondering how to get back on topic  ;D  :P
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Victek on August 14, 2012, 01:56:21 PM
It wasn't a question of speed that concerned me, just the 'appearance' of available bandwidth across a 'single' core.
i.e. if one created a virtual wideband core from multiple cores in terms of available addressing for the routines being piped to it.

I don't know how you would cope with things like load-balancing, queueing & synchronicity of processes as I am not a software genius  :P  this is just a bit of lateral thinking.

This is a bit over my head, but I am interested in learning more about core parking to the extent that it can be managed in Process Lasso.  It would be nice to know what the advantages and disadvantages are for various scenarios.  It sounds like Jeremy is working on it.  There hasn't been an update for, like, two days though - maybe someone needs to run out and get a pizza?  LOL  I'm sure we'll be hearing from him soon  :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 14, 2012, 02:22:31 PM
Back on topic....  ;)
Having been forced to play several hours of games to test PL core parking - I can say my overall performance has improved with the PL over-ride/management.
Once it is fully tweaked I am expecting an even better overall experience.  I am also interested in the possibly coincidental (?) reduction in temps.  Not much, but a 3-7C degree drop definitely.  Is spreading the load helping to balance localized core over-heating I wonder?

It's one of those settings that I would otherwise not play much with but I am quite surprised at the overall impact on the 'feel' of the PC.
Don't know what I'd do without PL making it easy to alter the environment.

All this talk of cake & pizza, whats next? Beer?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 14, 2012, 04:28:54 PM
Back on topic....  ;)
Having been forced to play several hours of games to test PL core parking - I can say my overall performance has improved with the PL over-ride/management.
Once it is fully tweaked I am expecting an even better overall experience.  I am also interested in the possibly coincidental (?) reduction in temps.  Not much, but a 3-7C degree drop definitely.  Is spreading the load helping to balance localized core over-heating I wonder?

It's one of those settings that I would otherwise not play much with but I am quite surprised at the overall impact on the 'feel' of the PC.
Don't know what I'd do without PL making it easy to alter the environment.

All this talk of cake & pizza, whats next? Beer?
1 beer for me  8)
But I am not 18 years old yet  :P
And I am reading about CPU thing, so I reply late  :P
----
I think is mostly the power save like C&Q is reducing your frequency if you haven disable it, so the frequency is failing down, and its much cooler
And If you having it disable, I think that is your CPU thermal grease not good and putting all the jobs to all core and getting almost same heat from all core to reducing temp more easily.

As with your cake (& now I'm hungry)  :)
Just buying a cake and eat it  ;D
----
Waiting Jeremy/other experts to answers it is the fastest way to knowing the answers  :P
----
Quote
It wasn't a question of speed that concerned me, just the 'appearance' of available bandwidth across a 'single' core.
i.e. if one created a virtual wideband core from multiple cores in terms of available addressing for the routines being piped to it.
Quote
My understanding is that multi-core allows one to hand off processes to dedicated cores.  (So a dev can allocate each software component to a set of physical resources within his codebase.)  Then it all has to be synchronized to events.
That is what Windows CPU scheduler doing it, hand off the threads of processes and allocate to all core.
And about available bandwidth, just checking L1, L2 and L3 cache of speed and you will knowing it.  ;)
----
Quote
It would be nice if software specifically written for 1 or 2 cores could deliberately take full advantage of all available cores in an optimal way.
Taking an 8 core & creating 2 virtual cores (each having access to 4 real cores) could provide extra bandwidth for the software in my (uninformed) theory.
I know what you are meaning, your meaning is using 1 thing inside the Processor to parallelize 1 thread into multi-threads, you need to waiting for "Anaphase" as Intel mention of it 2 years ago.

But you better read this.
https://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/multi-core-and-multi-threading/

The thing that you can parallelize is
e = a + b + c + d (1 thread)
into
t0 = a + b
t1 = c + d
e = t0 + t1
(3 threads)
but the last thread need the data of 1st and 2nd thread as said
Quote
However, to calculate e, you need the results of both threads. So part of the algorithm can be parallel, but another part is implicitly sequential. It depends on results from earlier calculations, so there is no way to run this calculation in parallel with other dependent calculations.
And
Quote
Amdahl’s law deals with these limitations of parallel computing. In one sentence, it says this:

   
Quote
The speedup of a program using multiple processors in parallel computing is limited by the time needed for the sequential fraction of the program
The sequential parts result in situations where threads for one step in the algorithm have to wait for the threads of the previous step to signal that they’re ready. The more sequential parts there are in a program, the less benefit it will have from multiple cores. And also, the more benefit it will have from the single-threaded performance of each core.

And that brings me back to the original point: people who think that the number of cores is the only factor in performance of multithreaded software.

So the most important is the single-threaded performance of each core to processing the sequential parts
The part that cannot be cut, and AMD processor that lack of this part now, single-threaded performance of each core

Quote
Now wondering how to get back on topic  ;D  :P
This... I don't know  ;D :P

This is a bit over my head, but I am interested in learning more about core parking to the extent that it can be managed in Process Lasso.  It would be nice to know what the advantages and disadvantages are for various scenarios.  It sounds like Jeremy is working on it.  There hasn't been an update for, like, two days though - maybe someone needs to run out and get a pizza?  LOL  I'm sure we'll be hearing from him soon  :)
If you meaning core parking, yes, it has been added to PL 6, just checking the setting of ProBalance and you will found it  ;)
When ProBalance restraint, it will making all core unpark until restraint finish.
----
Advantages
Decreasing of time to processing all threads
Increasing responsiveness for user
etc  :P

Disadvantages
Quote
Additionally, parking CPUs can potentially reduce core thrashing - when a thread is swapped between cores unnecessarily, causing a performance hit
Causing a thread performance hit.
Increasing heat, power etc
Turbo boost can't making 2 core working for higher frequency as other core are not parking, making 1 thread that full utilization of 1 core performance hit
Causing a performance hit to some multi-threads software when having fake-core/HT
etc  :P

Quote
.....So PL7+ needs to hack Win CPU scheduler  ;D
Maybe windows 8 scheduler having some improve.

Hungry again as reading too much  :P

French bread for me  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Victek on August 14, 2012, 07:15:55 PM

It's one of those settings that I would otherwise not play much with but I am quite surprised at the overall impact on the 'feel' of the PC.
Don't know what I'd do without PL making it easy to alter the environment.

All this talk of cake & pizza, whats next? Beer?

I thought the drink of preference was Mountain Dew?  Anyway, I expect Jeremy will jump in soon with some new information.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 15, 2012, 01:24:46 PM
BenYeeHua - the scalibq is a useful blog article for clarification of CPU interaction on threading.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20100519235548_Intel_Outlines_New_Tech_to_Boost_Performance_of_Single_Threaded_Software_on_Multi_Core_Chips.html (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20100519235548_Intel_Outlines_New_Tech_to_Boost_Performance_of_Single_Threaded_Software_on_Multi_Core_Chips.html)
Quote
Researchers from Intel Labs Barcelona have developed “Anaphase” technology, which is a novel hardware/software hybrid approach to leverage multiple cores in order to improve single-thread performance on multi-core processors. This research focuses on different speculative techniques to automatically partition single thread applications to be processed on multiple cores.
- does sound like it could be what I mean.  (If I believe Intel  :P )  We are back to my question about synchronicity I think........

My cores are dynamically clocked by the AOD software - hence the temp. change range  I guess.  My impression is the PC is smoother & behaving more dynamically, & I am inclined to thank PL for that.  That I suspect has a knock-on effect to the heat generated - useless cycles & thrashing being avoided where possible.




Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 15, 2012, 05:21:09 PM
BenYeeHua - the scalibq is a useful blog article for clarification of CPU interaction on threading.
Thank for the blog, get another source of knowledge  ;)

Quote
My cores are dynamically clocked by the AOD software - hence the temp. change range  I guess.  My impression is the PC is smoother & behaving more dynamically, & I am inclined to thank PL for that.  That I suspect has a knock-on effect to the heat generated - useless cycles & thrashing being avoided where possible.

Yup, if your processor is not support core-parking, parking the core to save power and reducing the heat.(and turboboost also)
As you unparking the core and using it to getting the performance increasing overall.

And maybe the single threads performance is decreasing(core thrashing as switching between more core), but with huge decreasing of switching threads on 1 core(and maybe your L2/L3 cache is just bring small problem to core thrashing), so you getting a better performance.

I thought the drink of preference was Mountain Dew?  Anyway, I expect Jeremy will jump in soon with some new information.
Never drinking it as my money is managing by my parents, I will try it when I having a chance  ;)

------
The core-parking in ProBalance is still not-working on this laptop, maybe because it is not-working on laptop?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 16, 2012, 04:18:17 PM
Guys, I apologize for the delay. It's been a long week here, perhaps the longest I've had this year. Anyway, I will catch up as soon as possible. I don't want to post anything in haste, so have some posts to go through.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on August 16, 2012, 04:32:32 PM
If your talking mainly gaming it is really hard to make even quad core run full , its just the way it will be as because in games its very dynamic and data is waiting on you and other players. You can't jump to newer thread or newer parts of data till whats done is done . Only if the game was very scripted would this work and thats not a good thing with a game/sim IMO, you want it to be highly dynamic so replay is different each time .
That Intel link is interesting, braking up single thread into multi-core uses but i just wonder how compatible it is (can same code run on AMD systems), I also have a feeling it only would work on very long thread workloads (just a guess) . its real hard to parallel code in games, so things can be done like new physics and damage, these can be done at same time and give better damage and feel .

With AMD new CPU they have cores sharing many parts so its kind of like HT but while there stronger than Intel the OS see's it the same. I think this is the problem or one of them .
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 18, 2012, 09:59:37 AM
Ok, whew, what a long thread to go through ;p. That's why I delayed it, after my 'off' week here. Of course, I *never* truly get time off. There are always support, updates, and well... a million things to do.. even on my days off. The one mistake I made was issuing a beta during the days off, one I'd been working on in VS2012. It broke XP compatibility, until I implement a work-around, or until Microsoft issues their update to VS2012 so that it supports XP. Had I known this, I'd not have made the switch. I do have the capability to go back to VS2010, I have build environments set up already, so I may do that - though prefer to forge ahead with VS2012.

Quote
I have noticed since disabling CP in probalance that the PC is faster (illusion? Maybe PL#6 is just doing a better job), it certainly seems much quicker in ToW2 than it was.  Even when I am in a <200 units battle it's smooth.  (The game sims every bullet/shell fired, trajectory & collision/richochet event - so the CPU takes a serious thrashing.)

It is likely NOT an illusion. Core Parking can be over-aggressive on some platforms. Microsoft even realized this, adding a second parameter to better control how aggressive it. I can attest to dramatic improvements on some platforms.

Quote from: bertie97
As I am running AMD I have real physical cores - no HT.

This is no longer true with newer AMD processors. They use Bulldozer (or later) platforms that pair cores into modules that share computational units. The Windows Scheduler treats them as HyperThreaded, and indeed they are - though at a lesser extent that Intel's. AMD essentially did the opposite of Intel, share a few computational units, instead of most computational units.

I added that graph to the About Core Parking (http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php) page, should have a long time ago. Now, I can't say how reliable it is, and results WILL vary. I can say that my experience on an AMD 9150 (Bulldozer, so the scheduler treats it as hyperthreaded) worked especially well. I mean, enough to notice WITHOUT any doubt. This was most likely because the Windows CPU Scheduler was treating the Bulldozer processor as HyperThreaded, when it really should be designed to properly handle these processors. On these processors, core parking should be substantially tuned down, that should mitigate the problem.

I am going to work on ParkControl (http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php) today and see if I can improve the inconsistent view you see somethings.

Can you guys give me a quick summation of any other questions or comments you'd like addressed? I know that sounds absurd, but it will save time. A boiled down, concise rendition of any outstanding features requests OR general questions.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 18, 2012, 03:24:29 PM
Sorry for the fail that making it short as my English language is bad  :P
I will trying making a short question at top  ;)

1.Using newest VS2012 is getting performance, but losing compatibility as user need to install the update?
2.Did Intel compiler still not supporting the new instructions(AVX, for example) for non-intel CPU?
3.Will ParkControl become more functional?
4.The disabling of core-parking in ProBalance working >90% of computer(that support core-parking)?
5.Using HPET can getting more performance for gaming and other software?(I only know that changing this for lose-control for speed of software/game when overclocking FSB)
5.What do you think about Piledriver before it came out?
-----
Using the newest VS2012 is to improving performance, but losing compatibility for user that has not installed VS2012 as they need to install it?
And the software that written by using Intel compiler, still not supporting the new instructions(AVX, for example) that other non-intel CPU supporting?
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=194&v=f
-----
ParkControl
And will it able to changing all of this?  ;D
The setting that need to change to showing this
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?277129-Core-parking-on-Windows-Seven&p=5009710&viewfull=1#post5009710
(http://keyfc.webuda.com/dl/r6vPU.jpg)

PS:Can I using some of this function to disable EIST, as laptop cannot disabling it.
-----
So, will the function of ProBalance that disabling Core-Parking working on mostly 90% computer that using PL 6?
It still not working here, just like the OS don't set it immediate, but after reboot/changing Power Plan.
-----
When using HPET, I found that when gaming, the frames are stable and I getting more 20-30 FPS from gaming as it having 480-500FPS (2d, for sure  ;D)
This is tested with the timer resolution is 1ms.
Before I changing it, it also accurate as 1.0000:1(100 sec)
But some person getting the opposite, they found that disabling HPET on bios getting more performance than enable/using it.
And using HPET getting micro-stutter, more DPC latency.
What the difference by changing it?
Can it really improve it like reducing DPC latency so the data can send to graphic card in short time?
Or just using it can making the FPS counter more accurate only?
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1075781-tweak-enable-hpet-in-bios-and-os-for-better-performance-and-fps/
-----
And what do you think about Piledriver, based on what I get from here
http://www.overclock.net/t/1291114/coolaler-amd-piledriver-fx-vishera-engineering-sample-benchmarks
At least 5-15% improve from Bulldozer with the same frequency/clock

Sorry for asking so many, as most people that I know does not having this knowledge. :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 18, 2012, 04:46:19 PM
1.Using newest VS2012 is getting performance, but losing compatibility as user need to install the update?

The compatibility problem inherent in VS2012 at this time (dropping of XP/2003 as a target - see VS2012 and XP/2003 (http://thepileof.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-visual-studio-2012-migration-and-xp.html) for more information. However, I have already developed a work-around, PESetVersion, adding to the PESuite tools (http://pecompact.com/pesuite.php). I am testing to make sure this solution will work and there are no CRT restrictions I must also overcome. If there are, I will go back to VS2008 (which I have at the ready in a virtual machine) and use it, or possibly just patch the CRT.

Microsoft decided to restore support for XP / 2003 in the end, BUT it won't come until some yet-to-be-announced update 'later this Fall'.

Quote
2.Did Intel compiler still not supporting the new instructions(AVX, for example) for non-intel CPU?

I do not know about Intel's compiler. I've only tried it out once, and am not an expert on what it does or doesn't support.

Quote
3.Will ParkControl become more functional?

Yes, I am reworking it now, and WILL be adding the option to add the option to the Power Options. It kind of negates the need for ParkControl, BUT ... whatever ;).

Quote
4.The disabling of core-parking in ProBalance working >90% of computer(that support core-parking)?

Automatically disabling core-parking when CPU usage is >90%? Yes, I can and should implement that. Thank you for the suggestion.

Quote
5.Using HPET can getting more performance for gaming and other software?(I only know that changing this for lose-control for speed of software/game when overclocking FSB)

It can change the performance of multimedia and games because it increases the clock granularity, allowing for events to be more precise. I don't know if that answers your question or not, but it is simply a more precise timer. It doesn't really make anything faster by default, though can make measurements faster, and could potentially allow for a more efficient CPU Scheduler.

Quote
5.What do you think about Piledriver before it came out?

I have no opinion on it ;p.

Quote
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=194&v=f

Glad Agner is still alive ;). I read his stuff like 20 years ago, lol. Anyway, I will have to read this article and see if I can determine what you are asking and/or provide my comments on it. I'll put it in response #2.

..... RESPONSE #2 is PENDING.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 19, 2012, 12:59:51 PM
Microsoft decided to restore support for XP / 2003 in the end, BUT it won't come until some yet-to-be-announced update 'later this Fall'.
Good to hear this, so the developers no need to do more extra work to support(after it release the update for xp)  :)

1.The core-parking(ProBalance) still no working here, and it is making core-parking disable after reboot/changing PowerPlan.
2.Did disable core-parking with a 2 core, 4 logical bringing a performance increase, or opposite?
3.When disabling core-parking, did windows put less threads on fake-core?
(And is Windows 8 working like this?)
4.Maybe disable core-parking when gaming mode enable, CPU usage>50% for 4 core, 8 logical is better?
(As maybe the software that support multi-thread max to 4 thread swapped to 2/4 cores most of the time as it is just unparking some fake-core, making the core usage not balanced).
5.So why windows 7 is using TSC+HPET/LAPICs as Vista is using HPET/LAPICs as default?
As it could potentially allow for a more efficient CPU Scheduler.
(As I found one of the reason is green agenda  :o)
6.Can auto-update showing at background and not steal the focus when software is full-screen, that annoying when gaming.
----
The disable core-parking(ProBalance) still no working here
Having test like this
1.Make sure the function of disable core-parking(ProBalance) has been tick, ParkControl showing 50% minimum core unparking
2.Running CPU eater by 1 thread to let ProBalance restraint and checking the core is still parking or not(showing parking at here, fail)
3.Exit CPU eater
4.Using ParkControl to check the setting(when ProBalance is not restraint), showing 100%(should not showing 50%?)
5.A reboot or changing PowerPlan to check core-parking is enable or not(nope, it is disable, it should be enable as default)

ParkControl is working here, ProBalance(disable core-parking function) is fail, and it make the core-parking disable after a reboot, changing PowerPlan.
Any idea?
----
Quote
(Maybe the 4 thread swapped to 2/4 cores most of the time as it is just unparking some fake-core, making the core usage not balanced).
Speculate with this picture/testing
(http://bitsum.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1378.0;attach=252;image)

Quote
..... RESPONSE #2 is PENDING.
..... RESPONSE #2 is WAITING.  ;D
As I don't like that Bulldozer working bad for some software is this reason.

And sorry for having so many "maybe" and questions  ;D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 19, 2012, 01:37:39 PM
Sorry for the wait ;o. I will catch up and finish as soon as I issue this next minor update. It is very important, a lot of people have been waiting on it. Heck, the beta didn't even work in XP for the last 3 days, and didn't work in XP x64 up until now. I've got to test everything pretty rapidly and get it out, as some are seeing crashes in the current final (with minidumps). Of course, I can't release it until I think it is ready. Since VS2012 went final, that is no longer a blocker, but I still must do some more testing, and there are some other known issues I want to address.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 19, 2012, 02:12:05 PM
Sorry for the wait ;o. I will catch up and finish as soon as I issue this next minor update. It is very important, a lot of people have been waiting on it. Heck, the beta didn't even work in XP for the last 3 days, and didn't work in XP x64 up until now. I've got to test everything pretty rapidly and get it out, as some are seeing crashes in the current final (with minidumps). Of course, I can't release it until I think it is ready. Since VS2012 went final, that is no longer a blocker, but I still must do some more testing, and there are some other known issues I want to address.
That fine, late better than nothing.  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 22, 2012, 10:11:03 AM
... and then my anniversary came, so had to tend to the wife :o. I will finish this discussion today. I can finally get back into my routine here, whew.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 22, 2012, 03:31:12 PM
... and then my anniversary came, so had to tend to the wife :o. I will finish this discussion today. I can finally get back into my routine here, whew.
And hope you having a some nice days on trip ;)
----
Adding another questions first, as it is midnight here. you haven reply  ;D
---- ← cutting line for more information
Building the short question at here
7.Can I making core-parking more smartly(and disabling fake-core, EIST etc)?  :D(Because it is "some" important, so I repeat asking 2 times)
8.When I disable core-parking, it still going C-state right?
9.What benefit can I get from memory trim?Faster GC?and it can be using by other process?(Just pushing into Standby list, not pushing it into page-file)
hxxp://www.pcwintech.com/about-other software
10.Changing AdditionalCriticalWorkerThreads and AdditionalDelayedWorkerThreads to 0x10 (16), what can I get?
Less DPC latency?
11.Can I using this(Interrupt-Affinity Policy (IntPolicy) tool) to reduce DPC latency?
(by reducing swapping when disable core-parking)
12.And why the responsiveness of PL and CPU eater(when running it) will decreasing by time, but it still responsive at it should
(I found it become smooth, it was lag before, I don't know this is because it is 1ms timer resolution, or after changing into HPET)
And your forum is missing the function to upload attachments, you better find a time to fix it :)

----
(http://keyfc.webuda.com/dl/r6vPU.jpg)
7.As this picture, I found that core-parking having so many function, is that safe/can disabling using of fake-core by changing core-parking max core?
And if I can, making core-parking more smartly?  :D
----
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg566941.aspx
----
Just reading about it
Quote
The maximum percentage of logical processors (in terms of all logical processors that are enabled on the system) that can be in the unparked state at any given time. For example, on a system with 16 logical processors, configuring the value of this setting to 50% ensures that no more than 8 logical processors are ever in the unparked state at the same time. The Core Parking algorithm is disabled if the value of this setting is not greater than the value of the Processor Performance Core Parking Minimum Cores setting
So it can be parking forever for fake-core.
Right?

8.Core-parking just making it sleep faster(going deeper C-state faster), but when I disable core-parking, it still will going C-state right?


9.What benefit I can get from memory trim?
----
As I know, I can using trim to reduce the memory used by process(not push it into page-file, is push it into Standby list)
And I tried trim Standby list(by using RAMMap), and it is pushing into page-file.
So that system is pushing the useless data(Standby list)first, then data using by process, correct?
----
And did doing this (Just push it into Standby list) making software GC(garbage collector) a "bit" faster(even it having memory lacks)?
(And the best way is restart program or waiting developers reducing it.)
Just wanna to know this is another snail oil, or I will getting a bit benefit from it.
hxxp://www.pcwintech.com/about-other software

10.Changing AdditionalCriticalWorkerThreads and AdditionalDelayedWorkerThreads to 0x10 (16), what can I get?
And reading from this, I am adding more threads for kernel to process something like DPC(And default is 1)?
hxxp://www.overclock.net/t/1254416/additionalcriticalworkerthreads
I know about that, just wanna make sure I am getting the correct information about it.
Quote
Examples are device driver I/O, the kernel itself, and other internal components.
----
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc615012%28v=bts.10%29.aspx
https://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=HOWTO56226
----

11.Can I using this(Interrupt-Affinity Policy (IntPolicy) tool) to reduce DPC latency(by reducing swapping when disable core-parking)?
----
https://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=HOWTO56227#v55486214
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463378
----

Just found another website when Google it.
hxxp://www.ryanstevens.co.uk/2011/03/18/tutorial-speed-windows-pc/
And I also found that I know mostly of it  :o
TCP/IP one is the most in my memory, as SpeedGuide have collected data on it website  :D

Going for optimize test right now (and that how I found PL)  ;)
And sorry for so~~~ many question, most of them are unsure/less answers by Google it
Thank You~ :D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 22, 2012, 07:15:27 PM
And hope you having a some nice days on trip ;)
It was short, but nice. Thanks. I will try to finally answer your questions now that things have calmed down a LITTLE ;).

Here we go....

Quote
7.Can I making core-parking more smartly(and disabling fake-core, EIST etc)?  :D(Because it is "some" important, so I repeat asking 2 times)

ProBalance can disable core parking when it acts. This would be a way to disable core parking during high loads. Typically you would do so via a power profile, then use Process Lasso's power profile automation to choose when core parking is active, and when it isn't.

Quote
8.When I disable core-parking, it still going C-state right?

Yes. See http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/611 for the full list, and further details. Your other sleep states should not be affected by disabling core parking. In other words, you are not going to be disabling any OTHER sleep state that would have otherwise been active. Do note that page is OLD and does not properly list the newer CPUs.

Quote
9.What benefit can I get from memory trim?Faster GC?and it can be using by other process?(Just pushing into Standby list, not pushing it into page-file)

Usually NONE. I put it in Process Lasso only because users wanted it so bad. I preach against it all the time. It is best to let the virtual memory manager handle this. See Bitsum on Memory Optimizer Scams (http://bitsum.com/winmemboost.htm) for the real deal.

Quote
10.Changing AdditionalCriticalWorkerThreads and AdditionalDelayedWorkerThreads to 0x10 (16), what can I get?
Less DPC latency?

Usually there won't be an appreciable effect. However, it will vary from PC to PC, depending on the executive environment (combination of hardware, software, and user behavior). I have never known this tweak to be particularly effective and you might do more harm than good if adjusting it.

Quote
11.Can I using this(Interrupt-Affinity Policy (IntPolicy) tool) to reduce DPC latency?
(by reducing swapping when disable core-parking)

Maybe. It again depends on the executive environment. In some cases it may help. I have not experimented with tweaking the interrupt affinity policy so have no first hand experience with it. Keep in mind they don't ship Windows to behave poorly and the pages recommending tweaks for Servers are usually more for specific situations where there are performance concerns due to *unusual* executive environments (see my previous definition since this is a term I made up ;p).

Quote
12.And why the responsiveness of PL and CPU eater(when running it) will decreasing by time, but it still responsive at it should
(I found it become smooth, it was lag before, I don't know this is because it is 1ms timer resolution, or after changing into HPET)
And your forum is missing the function to upload attachments, you better find a time to fix it :)

I will adjust the forum security permissions. I generally saw no need for attachments, so had limited them. I will at least allow images though, sorry about that.

Sometimes I tweak the CPU Eater's default number of threads. Some types of CPUs can handle more threads than others. I don't want to go into great details about which CPUs, but some can handle a good number of threads running at normal priority. Other CPUs (speaking of modern CPUs manufactured this year) can't handle more than 1 per core well. As time progresses, the situation usually gets worse, because more and more critical threads become starved, leading to a cascade effect.

Quote
7.As this picture, I found that core-parking having so many function, is that safe/can disabling using of fake-core by changing core-parking max core?
And if I can, making core-parking more smartly?  :D

Yes, that is a fine way to adjust CPU core parking. It does the same thing as ParkControl, though is obviously built into Windows so perhaps a bit easier to use. Windows hides a lot of power options, a huge number of them. When enabling them, just remember that not all may be supported by your hardware. In fact, MANY of the options you enabled may not work, or even be implemented at all. That's part of why they were hidden.

Quote
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg566941.aspx

Those documents are fine guides to the use of powercfg.exe, though probably won't tell you anything you don't already know, or help much. They are more designed for enterprise deployment, where a savings in energy is the primary concern. For saving $$$ and the environment.

Quote
So it can be parking forever for fake-core.
Right?

I don't know what you mean by forever, but the tendency is to park hyper-threaded or bulldozer pair'd cores first, yes. In the case of a true 'fake' core like a HyperThreaded core, it doesn't really save much energy though, if any, and is instead more intended to prevent core thrashing by disabling cores that aren't needed, or ones that are sub-par in performance (only offering a fraction of the performance of a physical core, or a core whose pair is free in the case of AMD Bulldozer).

Quote
8.Core-parking just making it sleep faster(going deeper C-state faster), but when I disable core-parking, it still will going C-state right?

Answered above.

Quote
9.What benefit I can get from memory trim?

Answered above, again most likely none, and probably a negative performance impact. Again, see Bitsum on Memory Optimizer Scams (http://bitsum.com/winmemboost.htm).

Quote
As I know, I can using trim to reduce the memory used by process(not push it into page-file, is push it into Standby list)
And I tried trim Standby list(by using RAMMap), and it is pushing into page-file.
So that system is pushing the useless data(Standby list)first, then data using by process, correct?

No, let the virtual memory manager handle this. It knows what to do with your RAM, as the page above describes. It tries to keep frequently accessed pages of virtual memory in RAM, pages out seldom accessed pages, and tries to leave room for a disk cache and launching of new applications. In NT6+ SuperFetch is a smart cache also kept in RAM by the virtual memory manager. When you muck around with the virtual memory subsystem, you screw all this up. Only in rare cases is it advantageous, and even then a penalty is later paid when the pages swapped out are referenced (called a hard page fault, which induces them to be paged back in by the virtual memory manager).

Quote
And did doing this (Just push it into Standby list) making software GC(garbage collector) a "bit" faster(even it having memory lacks)?
(And the best way is restart program or waiting developers reducing it.)

You mean Memory Leaks, and yes, it can page them out more aggressively - BUT the virtual memory manager will page them out anyway, as leaked memory is by definition not accessed again. Also, when a process closes of course all its virtual memory (leaks and all) is cleaned up. It is best to just let the virtual memory manager page out leaked memory when it actually needs to use that RAM. There is no sense in having actual free RAM, you want your RAM as full as possible. Any RAM not allocated by the virtual memory of running processes is used as a disk cache, but if you find the Resource Manager showing you that your RAM isn't even being filled with disk cache, then that means you have more RAM than you even need. In general, I do NOT recommend forcing process to page their memory out - ever. Even for processes leaking memory. Sure, by doing this you can force the leaked virtual memory to be paged out faster, but this is unnecessary as the OS will do it when it actually needs that RAM for something useful.

Quote
TCP/IP one is the most in my memory, as SpeedGuide have collected data on it website  :D

I strongly advise you not to touch TCP/IP parameters! While in some rare cases it can be helpful, it usually isn't, and those who think it is usually see a placebo effect, or coincidence. That said, there are cases where the MTU can be adjusted and it helps, but it is an exceedingly rare set of circumstances these days. It is much more likely you will slow down or otherwise screw up your network stack.

I hope this helps some ... ;). Sorry it took so long. If I missed any, let me know. A couple were duplicates I think.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 23, 2012, 08:03:06 PM
After you said that the setting of core-parking is safe to using it, I testing it by reverse the function that provide.
Force core-parking "always" park the fake-core when not using software that support 4 threads, and when not using 2 real-core 100%
And this is the answer for this
Quote
So it can be parking forever for fake-core.
Right?
Maybe you can try this.
"Processor performance core parking max cores" set to 50%

Because I am using a laptop, so the bios cannot disable HT to testing the performance between disable/enable HT when disable core-parking.
And I wanna try to disable it by core-parking, and it work.
-----
And you missed some question, I will re ask it. ;)
1.The core-parking(ProBalance) still no working here, and it is making core-parking disable after reboot/changing PowerPlan. Only ParkControl apply real-time.

2.When disable core-parking, did windows put less threads on fake-core?
(And is Windows 8 working like this?)

3.Maybe "always" disable core-parking when gaming mode enable, CPU usage>50% for 4 core, 8 logical etc is better?
As I tested, when cpu usage is 25%, 1 thread is swapping between CPU 0,1,3, so it means performance reduce(and tested by force parking fake-core, performance increase)
That maybe why when disable core-parking when you having 4 real core, 4 fake-core, the Winrar 4 threads performance increased, 50% means using CPU 0,1,2,3,4,5,7 if I guess right, the threads is not balanced, and the thread swapping the same core most of the time.

4.If can, adding the "Processor performance core parking max cores" to ParkControl, as it can always disable fake-core when running software that support 1/2 threads, just like disable HT in bios, but more easy way as no reboot and manual required.
And some of my friends tested that, when having 4 real-core, 4 fake-core, disable HT when playing game that support 2 threads, performance increase.
But the problem is, when setting it "always" park 50% core, it will always park the fake-core or not for more than 4 real-core, 4 fake-core.

4.So why windows 7 is using TSC+HPET/LAPICs as Vista is using HPET/LAPICs as default?
As it could potentially allow for a more efficient CPU Scheduler. For power saving? Or they are no/little difference ???

6.Can auto-update showing at background and not steal the focus when software is full-screen, that annoying when gaming.

7.Did the system disable SuperFetch when having SSD as the boot-disk is a correct way? As RAM is faster than SSD.

And still waiting for this  :)
Quote
2.Did Intel compiler still not supporting the new instructions(AVX, for example) for non-intel CPU?
-----
About the TCP/IP, don't worry about that, and I know the Windows 7 is doing better than Windows XP, for example, RWIN.
In fact, only changing the MTU, manual RWIN(XP only), TCP1323Opts, Host Resolution Priority(a bit only, except you are running tons of services  :P), CTCP (Compound TCP)(not sure about this, depends), ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification, RFC 3168)(useful for Wifi Network when it support), Direct Cache Access (DCA)(reduce latency, useful only for 1Gbps transfer local network, maybe reduce 0.1ms  :P)

The most useful for gaming is disable Network Throttling Index, and test first before disable Nagle's algorithm, as the function is reduce small packet sent out.
If you wanna try it without disable Nagle's algorithm, just changing TcpDelAckTicks=1, changing ACK interval timeout from 200ms to 100ms, reduce a bit also.
-----
But the simple way is, using CfosSpeed, as it will changing RWIN real-time with max 300ms delay(can be change) by priority with Layer-7 Protocol.
No need to changing thing, just install it, make sure that it calibration complete, and you are done with it.

Using software smartly, why you need manual doing that when just some clicking on it.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 24, 2012, 12:02:41 PM
Please give me some more time again (sorry). I must get caught up on work again, as last night I was mucking around securing the server and ended up in a Server Administration nightmare. I still have work to do as I'm migrating to a dedicated cloud database server. It should provide more reliable performance and allow me to downgrade the primary server, saving money in the end. I didn't intend to make the switch so fast, but really screwed things up ;p. We had a few minutes of downtime even.

Quote
1.The core-parking(ProBalance) still no working here, and it is making core-parking disable after reboot/changing PowerPlan. Only ParkControl apply real-time.

I will investigate this in today's work, I was not aware this to be the case! EDIT: I found the cause, and will be fixing it in the next minor version. EDIT2: FIXED. Note that it will actually work in some cases, but not immediately as it should in all cases. I am confident in the fix though, it was an oversight. After review and few other odds and ends I will publish the update.

More later, I promise ;). Your questions are in-depth and really take some time to answer correctly.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 24, 2012, 02:36:05 PM
I am uploading a new beta that should resolve the lack of the core parking change instantaneously applying in some cases. I still have more work to do before I go final, quite a bit of work. Translations also need updated, or manually tweaked by me pending proper updates. I will respond to the rest of your questions as soon as I take care of larger jobs, again ;).

EDIT: Do note that the governor may need be to running escalated in most NT6+ environments.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 24, 2012, 08:02:07 PM
Quote
More later, I promise ;). Your questions are in-depth and really take some time to answer correctly.
Ok, and just because it is in-depth, so it is very hard to Google it, mostly the answers are copy from Google(so I read the same answer repeat and repeat), and it not explain correctly.
----
Quote
I will investigate this in today's work, I was not aware this to be the case! EDIT: I found the cause, and will be fixing it in the next minor version. EDIT2: FIXED. Note that it will actually work in some cases, but not immediately as it should in all cases. I am confident in the fix though, it was an oversight. After review and few other odds and ends I will publish the update.
Just testing with it(6.0.0.89 beta), it can disable core-parking, but fail to restore it back.
And did the ProBalance restore back core-parking to default when having update or other thing like restart it?
----
Just showing the parking log, it showing
ERROR - Core parking could not be changed in real time,Please run the core engine with elevated rights (in install config) to resolve this issue.
But I running it with elevated rights(and I having UAC disable), and when I using Process Explorer to checking all PL process permissions, I found one unknown acc, is that normal?What account is this?
Account Unknown(S-1-5-5-0-147376)
----
So what you wanna to do to fix this(core-parking remain disable for them), I think there are some people having this problem.
By just restore back the core-parking to default first(after update)?
----
Quote
EDIT: Do note that the governor may need be to running escalated in most NT6+ environments.
Always running escalated as I trust it. ;)
----
Just having a little problem with the function that I never using it, but maybe for other user.
When showing threads and modules tabs, I found that if you focus the process in Active processes tab, it show nothing, only focus process in All processes will start showing it.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 25, 2012, 12:53:27 PM
First, I do see the issue with the dialogs. I am looking into that for the next update. They may not correctly reflect the Enabled/Disabled state. 100 means disabled and 50 means enabled.
After something of a hiatus myself I am now back playing with CP.  It seems the thread has become a monster in my absence...!  ;D

Just updated to beta x.69 & am going to try some gaming with CP set to disabled & see if anything feels different.  Also need to test some video encoding I think.

Was wondering in ref to the above what does 0 represent as a value in the dialog?  Neither 1 or the other?

As I am running an ancient 1090 I don't actually have much knowledge of Bulldozer.  I looked at it briefly & thought it was less of an advance than I would have liked.  This may be unfair on my part but ... 
I really ought to take another look as the info above has piqued my curiosity.  :)

In its' current guise PL is helping me maximize the performance I'm seeing so I'm happy.  The core activity graph is now showing much more balanced access/load across the group.
I am now able to add items to profiles & assign CP state to those profiles so it's looking good.

& to continue the red herrings - I can only hope that BenYeeHua was given some Mountain Dew for 七夕节  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 25, 2012, 02:02:08 PM
Quote
& to continue the red herrings - I can only hope that BenYeeHua was given some Mountain Dew for 七夕节
Nope, I don't have a girl friend.  :P
So I will not buying it.  8)
Quote
Also need to test some video encoding I think.
Nope, as when you converting, the cpu usage always 100%, so it is remains all core unparking, so same performance.
Only if you having the cpu usage not over 20%, 50% etc(I need to check the default setting to check it out), then the core-parking is repeat parking, unparking, parking.....
So the performance reduced when it doing like this, and the only way is disable core-parking.
----
Quote
Was wondering in ref to the above what does 0 represent as a value in the dialog?  Neither 1 or the other?
That is the value of "Processor performance core parking min cores", if you setting it to 100, it means 100% core need unparking, 50% is 2 core unparking, 2 core parking etc.
And windows always unparking 2 core at least, so if you setting it to 0%(all core can parking), that is useless for 4 core, but useful for more than 4 core.
----
I am doing the opposite, using "Processor performance core parking max cores" to remain parking the fake-core to getting the performance when having nearly 50% usage, as HT is making the performance of single thread by adding some delay, but increasing in overall performance.
----
Quote
Just updated to beta x.69 & am going to try some gaming with CP set to disabled & see if anything feels different.
You can use the benchmark inside the game to test it.  ;)
Quote
In its' current guise PL is helping me maximize the performance I'm seeing so I'm happy.  The core activity graph is now showing much more balanced access/load across the group.
I am now able to add items to profiles & assign CP state to those profiles so it's looking good.
Yup, so when you running game before, just changing the Power Plans, but not opening ParkControl and changing it  ;)
----
Quote
As I am running an ancient 1090 I don't actually have much knowledge of Bulldozer.  I looked at it briefly & thought it was less of an advance than I would have liked.  This may be unfair on my part but ...
I really ought to take another look as the info above has piqued my curiosity.  :)
Bulldozer is strong in multi-threads, but weak in single-thread, and if you most of time is converting video, you can try it, because of H264 support FMA4 and other newer instruction.

Tested by my tieba friends(included me)by converting with the same source, convert setting.
(http://keyfc.webuda.com/dl/3.jpg)
(http://keyfc.webuda.com/dl/2.jpg)
(http://keyfc.webuda.com/dl/1.jpg)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 25, 2012, 03:10:51 PM
My idea to try gaming & encoding has offered a couple of new opportunities to tweak my environment.
On the game front, running background processes previously impacted the game smoothness.  Not now.  A noticeable lack in interruption was visible.
On the encoding front using a 264 codec I am seeing a higher & more constant through-put  Again allowing background processes to run without any noticeable impact.
I am not seeing any drop in general responsiveness either.  eg typing, using browser & tabbing around.

So I can conclude PL is doing what it is designed to do.  The PC is smoother & more efficient.  This 69 build is certainly one of the best yet as far as I am concerned.  8)

@BenYeeHua
You are making some assumptions about what I am doing - as PL is designed to handle multiple variables I am not just interested in
a+b=c; c-b=a etc
It is perhaps more a question of
if a then b(c) or (c)b
where variables are processes vs resources, if you see what I mean. 
The point being, running any given process with x PL settings doesn't clearly represent the nature of the softwares' task orientation.  It's more about juggling than straight hand-offs.
At least it is for me. 
I want optimal multi-tasking & PL is helping with that.  I have hitherto assumed that to be the target theatre of operation of the software.

What do your images represent? Time vs performance per CPU?


Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 25, 2012, 03:27:33 PM
Quote
if you see what I mean. 
When this is writing in Chinese  ;D
Let me thinking more by using more time.
----
Quote
Time vs performance per CPU?
Nope, is just performance per CPU(not core)
For example, i7 getting 10 average frame per second, but i3 getting 5 average frame per second, so the performance of i7 is 200% when i3 having 100%
The 100% in the graph is 8.51 average frame per second(fps)
Because it is using the same source(file) and convert setting and same H.264 version with a normal priority, so it is fair.
----
PL is changing the priority of the background processes when it start eating cpu to prevent it impacts the responsiveness of the system.
Taking some resource from the process that eating cpu and giving the resource to foreground process that you are using.
(By reducing the priority of the CPU eater to below normal)

This is just because of the NT CPU scheduler don't auto reducing the priority of a processes when it become a CPU eater and start impacts the responsiveness of the system.

Just reading more doc at this website, and you will knowing more about it  ;)

http://bitsum.com/about_probalance.php
Quote
One reason for this is that the intended proper behavior of a Windows application is not what is seen in the real world. They are meant to do a brief burst of CPU use, then enter wait state. Instead, they often are poorly designed and end up in live-locked and other 100% CPU use situations. It is impossible for Microsoft to know for sure what application really needs that CPU and which doesn't. With a little 'market intelligence', a little logic, and some help from the user Process Lasso's ProBalance can do better -- saving your PC from a total stall or simply increasing responsiveness.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 26, 2012, 08:13:45 AM

Quote
One reason for this is that the intended proper behavior of a Windows application is not what is seen in the real world. They are meant to do a brief burst of CPU use, then enter wait state. Instead, they often are poorly designed and end up in live-locked and other 100% CPU use situations. It is impossible for Microsoft to know for sure what application really needs that CPU and which doesn't. With a little 'market intelligence', a little logic, and some help from the user Process Lasso's ProBalance can do better -- saving your PC from a total stall or simply increasing responsiveness.

That is what I am trying to test.....  & why I am testing it.  Mission statement vs 'reality'  8)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 26, 2012, 01:05:26 PM
Quote
Mission statement vs 'reality'  8)
lol  ;D
Just because every computer have difference hardware, so we need to test which setting is good for us ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 26, 2012, 01:22:47 PM
Just wanna to report that PL disable core-parking is working half of it work  :o
It can disable core-parking real-time, but it cannot restore it back to default setting.
Running it with elevated right  :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 26, 2012, 01:59:58 PM
@BenYeeHua: There may have been a rush to final and this was missed. I'll fix it right up ASAP. The code wasn't missed, so there must be a malfunction of some sort.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 26, 2012, 02:09:16 PM
@BenYeeHua: There may have been a rush to final and this was missed. I'll fix it right up ASAP. The code wasn't missed, so there must be a malfunction of some sort.
Some of my mistake also, as I asking too many question, so you miss this important question as the page too long  :P
I should highlight it next time :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 27, 2012, 03:27:35 PM
First, sorry for any lost posts. I had some server issues here. Web server administrator is one of my several full time jobs ;p.

I have been running some tests and need to ask, is there any possibility that your previous setting had cpu parking disabled? It should be reverting to the setting you had prior to ProBalance disabling CPU Parking, as opposed to enabling CPU Parking. I am not saying there is not a bug, because I have not finished evaluating it, but wanted to clarify that it does revert to the previous setting. I appreciate you reporting this in any case. I believe I will add additional information to the log to let the user know the actual state of the core parking after a change is made. This should aid both in debugging and presentation to the user.

EDIT: I believe there may indeed be something amiss with the restoration of the parking setting after exiting a ProBalance event, I continue to look into it. It *might* be caused by multiple ProBalance events overlapping one another.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 27, 2012, 03:49:01 PM
Quote
is there any possibility that your previous setting had cpu parking disabled?
Nope, everytime I test it, I use the ParkControl to check that it is 50% parking or not.
And I has tried difference power plans, still getting the same result.
It can disable core-parking, but it fail to restore it back to default one.
And ParkControl is working normal.
----
Quote
First, sorry for any lost posts. I had some server issues here. Web server administrator is one of my several full time jobs ;p.
That fine  :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 27, 2012, 03:52:06 PM
Yes, there is a problem for sure. Fully fixing it requires a little more work than I anticipated - but not much. I should have it fixed soon and a new build out today or tomorrow. Very sorry for the trouble. I may also add a quick toggle for CPU Parking at some point here, and potentially also allow for ProBalance to change power profiles.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 27, 2012, 04:56:20 PM
I have finally fixed ParkControl's inconsistencies as well. I have made a lot of fixes and improvements today. I must do some testing and code review before release, but this next build should be a good one. It cleans up my todo list quite a bit.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 27, 2012, 05:06:30 PM
Ok~
I will waiting for that
Thank  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 27, 2012, 06:18:19 PM
After one mis-fire, I am testing the fixed CPU Park Control (http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php). Now available as a stand-alone download again.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 27, 2012, 06:27:15 PM
As I do testing and code review I am issuing 6::95. Now, the big thing here is that it only changes the parking behavior on the first entrance into an active ProBalance event, or the exit of the last active ProBalance event. This is not only more optimal, but should behave right. I still have to test, so no guarantees on this build, but it will go final very quickly.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 27, 2012, 06:54:30 PM
The .95 beta still malfunctions, but I wanted to publish it anyway for other testing. I will have it fixed in .96 for sure.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 28, 2012, 12:48:00 AM
Yup, still not restore back to default parking setting.
And ParkControl showing the "enable/disable" correctly  :)
PS:After this function is repaired, I think the next one is silent update, when I gaming, it jump out and stole the focus :P
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 28, 2012, 02:05:46 PM
I've been fiddling with that update dialog for a long while... every time I change it one way, I have one set of users who complain.. then change it the other way, and a different set of users complain, lol. I need to put some thought into it, but I will do so ;).

Am still working on the re-enabling of core parking, have to debug the issue since it should be working. Once complete, this version will go final. I wish I would have fixed ParkControl long ago :o. Took all of 1 minute.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 28, 2012, 02:38:25 PM
Because PL is getting update >1 times/week, and most of update time is not just like other rarely used software, when you starting it, it will showing update dialog.
But just like a ghost, scaring you(jumping a window) when doing other thing.
----
Maybe a bubble dialog(or just like after windows update need reboot to update file) in tray icon, showing that
"PL having a newer version, do you want to update it now or next time the computer reboot and auto update?"
(if behave like windows update, giving yes/next reboot)
And the "automatically keep PL up to date", changing it into silent update and showing a bubble dialog is better.
Like "PL having a newer version, it will auto update in 5 sec."

Just an opinion  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 28, 2012, 02:55:32 PM
I will see what I can do. Like I said, gotta please everyone. For now, the safest thing to do is turn off updates, and check manually, or when you see an update via the RSS feed.

I am working on an entirely new update component anyway, so will likely not change the existing one until this is revealed. It will be much like other modern updaters, running independently of the software on a specific schedule by the Task Manager. Of course, I'll have to do some alternate methods for those still on XP.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 28, 2012, 03:16:01 PM
Not a gamer, so not affect so much.
Most people like to watching it is working, but not so much shine until it stole the focus.  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 28, 2012, 03:51:46 PM
I found the cause of the parking re-enable bug. Simple typo. Testing now.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 28, 2012, 04:42:19 PM
Ok, it has passed testing. I'm glad I worked on this anyway, as issuing a single change to the parking makes a lot more sense when multiple ProBalance events are occurring concurrently. Anyway, it tests well so far, and my builds put Process Lasso's ProBalance through some serious testing (as you can imagine), with 8 cores all launching multiple CPU bound processes over and over. Anyway, I do want to investigate how all the various features interoperate, and perhaps refine a few things. However, this build is a good improvement over the last, so is being built now.

Some of the things Bertie mentioned first put some of the possible complications into my mind ... using this feature with that feature, etc... In the end, Process Lasso requires a certain level of user sophistication to tweak, but not to 'simply use'. That's why I discourage changing the defaults unless people know precisely what they are doing.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 28, 2012, 08:55:09 PM
Still having some problem, sometimes it will fail to set core-parking correctly, whatever it is disabling or enabling.
Maybe making it set 2 times, or adding a delay on it?
Quote
In the end, Process Lasso requires a certain level of user sophistication to tweak, but not to 'simply use'. That's why I discourage changing the defaults unless people know precisely what they are doing.
Yup, just like Windows  ;D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 28, 2012, 09:13:51 PM
Hmm.. I am not sure. I will continue evaluating it here. My test environments normally put it through the wringer. It may [edit]does NOT[/edit] have something to do with a change of the active power profile, particularly if you are using Energy Saver. A change in the power profile during a ProBalance restraint could confuse it, and this may need a change. I will look into it ;). Of course, that is wild speculation, and it should be working right..
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 28, 2012, 11:54:28 PM
Nope, I not using anything that auto changing the power plans.
If they are changing, the factory software will showing the changing logo  ;)
---
Try testing it with short-time(<5/10 secs), can produce it more faster
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 29, 2012, 02:50:04 PM
Yes, I later evaluated the code and found I had of course handled this condition.

Therefore, the cause must be something else. I will likely find it in extended testing, or perhaps just continued thought ;). A quick toggle is coming soon too I think, so that you can know the state, and change it.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: danlock on August 29, 2012, 03:33:54 PM
With reference to the auto-update window/no window debate and toggling:


The initial install/change install options menu could include a checkbox/toggle switch that asks, "Would you like a window to pop up on your screen when Process Lasso updates to a new build? If you don't check this box, it will do so silently (in the background). You will be able to toggle the "Show window when updating/background updating" option in the Updates menu after installation completes, so don't worry if make a choice here that you want to change."


That will, of course, require the inclusion of that toggleable option, however you want it to read, in the Updates menu if you do it the way I've just described.


I hate the XP scheduler, never use it, and regularly remove or disable tasks that insert themselves into the scheduler (the Task Scheduler service itself is set to "Manual start" on my system (not the Automatic Updates notifier, the Task Scheduler)), so I'm happy to see that you're aware of needing to do it a different way on XP.

Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 30, 2012, 12:48:43 AM
I forgot the install optional setting
Thank  ;)
----
Quote
I hate the XP scheduler, never use it, and regularly remove or disable tasks that insert themselves into the scheduler (the Task Scheduler service itself is set to "Manual start" on my system (not the Automatic Updates notifier, the Task Scheduler)), so I'm happy to see that you're aware of needing to do it a different way on XP.
You should type as XP Task Scheduler, as scheduler can be windows scheduler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduling_%28computing%29
Quote
In computer science, scheduling is the method by which threads, processes or data flows are given access to system resources (e.g. processor time, communications bandwidth). This is usually done to load balance a system effectively or achieve a target quality of service. The need for a scheduling algorithm arises from the requirement for most modern systems to perform multitasking (execute more than one process at a time) and multiplexing (transmit multiple flows simultaneously).
And this is why PL is need for us ;)

And I hate some software adding the task also, I don't like them checking update when I rarely using them, I just check the update with a "Software manage" and update them when I need them  :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 30, 2012, 10:17:20 AM
I will be uploading a second build of .98 it looks like, to address a secondary problem with the preservation of the parking settings when set to disable during ProBalance. I am pretty confident this is the culprit, and the build has only been out a few minutes. If it passes automated testing, I'm just re-uploading and re-issuing it. I wish I would have caught it 5 minutes ago, instead of while I was uploading .. but at least I caught it. Note that what we are talking about doesn't affect anyone who doesn't use the ProBalance option to disable CPU core parking during ProBalance events.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Victek on August 30, 2012, 10:41:57 AM
This thread about core parking is intriguing, but somewhat over my head.  It would be great to have an explanation of core parking on the Process Lasso webpage (or somewhere :-) ) that explains in layman's terms what it is and the pros and cons of using PL to adjust it.  At the moment I'm not sure which way to go.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 30, 2012, 10:44:03 AM
Honestly, for most people concerned with performance, you should disable CPU core parking. It is more for energy savings than anything. The scheduler already tries to avoid core thrashing (the other thing it helps with). So, it comes down to that simple recommendation ;). ProBalance has a feature (what I have been fixing here) to disable core parking while ProBalance is active. However, you can also change the parking setting for specific power profiles. In the end, Process Lasso can control it any number of ways. Please see ParkControl (Options / Power) for more information.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 30, 2012, 11:14:29 AM
@BenYeeHua: Ok, the final .98 is out now. I believe this will be ok for you. It has done well for me in LOTS of testing so far... And I definitely did fix one possible cause for such a loss in the settings, no question about that. The first build didn't exist very long, so I don't think anyone will mind. Again, any reader who did get that first build will get an update notification in 'Check For Updates'.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 30, 2012, 12:17:03 PM
Just testing it 5 mins, and it is working.
I will testing it 1 day to checking that it is working without problem or not  ;)
Just a question, when the computer shutdown/PL is having a update/PL process is end task while ProBalance is restraint, what will happen to core-parking setting?
Will it restore core-parking to default setting next time the PL is start or?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 31, 2012, 06:06:40 AM
Gratifying as it is to see my original question blossom into the monstrous triffid I see before me...  ;)

I am still kinda wondering about the 0-50-100% gradations, what was 0 again?  Allow ''all'' to be parked?
 :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Phil on August 31, 2012, 09:44:25 AM
Gratifying as it is to see my original question blossom into the monstrous triffid I see before me...  ;)

I am still kinda wondering about the 0-50-100% gradations, what was 0 again?  Allow ''all'' to be parked?
 :)

The percentage box indicates the amount of activity your cores will surmount during high CPU usage. For instance, if you want 75% of your cores to be active while the other 25% remain unparked, type in 75 in the box. bitsum.support referred to this in an article on how to manually disable core parking here: CPU Core Parking (http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 31, 2012, 10:06:24 AM
Thanks I'd missed that bit of documentation  ::)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 31, 2012, 12:57:01 PM
And for the record '0' is considered an invalid value (as all cores can't be parked) and thus causes a return to default (which varies) maximum parking (all but one physical core).
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on August 31, 2012, 04:49:23 PM
And for the record '0' is considered an invalid value (as all cores can't be parked) and thus causes a return to default (which varies).

& that would be the missing piece of the puzzle. 
I had considered that all cores parked would be equivalent to a 'sleep' state.  Feeling this was potentially illogical given the options, I was moved to seek answers - so thanks are in order   ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 31, 2012, 04:54:35 PM
I am glad you brought this up, because this is a deficiency in ParkControl. I need to clearly explain what '0' would do.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 31, 2012, 05:01:56 PM
Ok, I need to amend my statement above. After cursory testing in NT 6.2, a value of 0 will allow parking of all but one physical core - since at least one physical core *must* remain active. So, instead of 'default', I should have said 'maximum parking'. The actual scheduler behavior regarding parking needs further analyzed and documented, as well as any changes that have been made between NT 6.0 to NT 6.2, and any differences between processors.

In short, I'm on it. Microsoft kind of sprung this on everyone without much documentation. It was originally designed mostly for servers needing to save energy and reduce thermal emissions, but later proliferated onto all PCs (likely with saving the environment in mind). While it also theoretically can have a positive effect on core thrashing, the scheduler already avoids core thrashing, so I am skeptical it has any additional impact on core thrashing.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 31, 2012, 05:11:49 PM
And while it seems logical to 'park' cores that aren't in use, there *is* a very pronounced effect on performance I and others have benchmarked. Why? Because although unparking the core is fast, it is not instant. And it takes the slightest delay to cause an effect on performance and/or responsiveness. The largest issue, I believe, is how aggressively Windows parks cores. Once enabled, you'll see it immediately start parking cores, even if the total CPU load is as high as 50%. If it were to be more conservative, its effect on performance would be less. There is actually an undocumented power profile configuration setting that appears to control the aggressiveness of the parking, but information on it is not available, so we are only left to guess what it might affect. It wasn't added for no reason, so I suspect Microsoft identified this problem ... but for *some* CPUs, it is still far too aggressive with its parking. So, one thing on my todo list is to reverse engineer what this setting does, and continue research on CPU parking in Windows on various CPUs, and the effect of such.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 31, 2012, 05:19:41 PM
Quote
I still have more tests to run to determine if 'maximum parking' is the default
Quote
So, one thing on my todo list is to reverse engineer what this setting does, and continue research on CPU parking in Windows on various CPUs, and the effect of such.
I waiting for this also  ;)
It is a secret for us, just like the TCP auto-turning, SuperFeteh etc
Quote
so I am skeptical it has any additional impact on core thrashing.
I wanna asking this, what is the affect of core-parking when having the fake-core?
What time the fake-core will helping the most?
Full load, or little load on CPU?
As I know, HT is reduce the idle time of CPU while it can grab the resources from other thread(on real-core).
With more time with a thread, but decrease the total time for a jobs with multi-threads software.
----
For example: when having 4 threads software(winrar), it decreasing the performance as most time the threads is on the fake-core, because core-parking has parking only 1-3 fake core, so the time to let the threads reach the real-core is need for some time. And it cause 2 threads of winrar is fighting in 1 core  ;D
----
And, did the fake-core putting less threads than real-core if core-parking is disable???
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 31, 2012, 05:27:05 PM
The scheduler avoids logical (fake) cores by default to the maximum extent it can. When it does put a thread on a logical core, it tries to move it to a physical core as soon as one is available in the next time slice. It knows to avoid them.

So, to answer your question (I think), you will *not* get in a situation where somehow the physical cores got parked, leaving only those low-performance hyper-threaded cores available.

BUT, it could be that having too few physical cores available could cause performance degradation, but in theory Windows should unpark these cores immediately when this situation arises. The inability for it to do so quickly enough, or anticipate the CPU utilization needs, and then the aggressiveness at which it tries to re-park cores I believe is the performance issue.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 31, 2012, 05:31:36 PM
[edited] - as always. I am sorry, sometimes I have trouble understanding what you are asking, but then I eventually figure it out. Your concern was if only one physical core was left (with 2 logical cores on it), that the scheduler would only use that one real physical core, instead of waking up the other real physical cores for maximum performance. In theory, Windows shouldn't be that stupid. My opinion as to why this has such a big effect on performance is in the last paragraph above and instead involves the aggressiveness of CPU Parking by Windows. I mean, if you watch it, it wants to park them *quick*. This results in a high frequency of sleep/wake cycles.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 31, 2012, 05:39:55 PM
Quote
it wants to park them *quick*. This results in a high frequency of sleep/wake cycles.
Ok, I understand it now, but how about this?
4 real-core unparked, but the first core of the fake-core also unparked.
Without the core-parking is parking/unparking(active).
So what will happen to the performance to 1(and 4)thread(s)?
Increase or decrease?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 31, 2012, 05:44:15 PM
I do not know. It depends on how smart the scheduler is, and the CPU type (e.g. an AMD logical core is much more like a physical core than an Intel hyper-threaded logical core). Not very helpful, but it is hard for me to guess what the impact might be in such a situation. It would also depend on what software is running on the PC, its needs, etc...

In other words, too many variables for me to try to guess... but I can make something up if you prefer ;p
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 31, 2012, 06:06:41 PM
Ya, the HT is not perfect, while it reduce the idle time of the core, it also grab the resource from the thread on real core.
And the AMD is reverse, it grab the resource of an office(module), like L2 for example.
----
Why we get a slower fix of scheduler for Bulldozer in Windows, but more quickly in Linux?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 31, 2012, 07:21:10 PM
Why we get a slower fix of scheduler for Bulldozer in Windows, but more quickly in Linux?

Because *any* adjustment to the Windows scheduler requires extensive testing, as it might change the behavior of legacy software, especially enterprise software running on servers, or real-time systems. Linux, on the other hand, always has the capacity to change more rapidly, caring very little about legacy support. Further, with linux, being open source, you can choose which scheduler you want to compile into your kernel, if you are an advanced user. Mostly though it is about legacy support. The entire linux community is very against maintaining support for legacy applications and systems, they toss them out so fast I can't keep up at times. For instance, changes in the GCC compiler sometimes breaks projects I work on, and I must adjust them to handle the new compiler. Microsoft maintains legacy support not by choice necessarily, but out of customer demand. As soon as they go change anything, they have revolts. Therefore, anything they do change, especially something at that level, must at the very least go through extensive testing. It is also less risky to simply not change it, and allow a performance penalty.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 31, 2012, 08:07:28 PM
As I mentioned, I have begun additional research on core parking, but the results won't be available for a while. In the interim, the things we can agree on are:

1. Windows is too aggressive in its CPU Parking.
2. This problem is more prevalent on certain processors (both AMD and Intel).
3. The electrical and thermal savings are modest given the pre-existing per-core frequency and voltage scaling technologies already in existence.
4. When disabling CPU Parking, I strongly recommend using ParkControl (http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php) or Process Lasso's ProBalance (http://bitsum.com/prolasso.php) over manual registry edits. They do it the 'right way'.
5. Any beneficial impact on a reduction in core thrashing has not been demonstrated, to my knowledge and experience.
6. Too little information and guidance has been provided by Microsoft.

I will release a compiled list of default parking behaviors of Windows on various systems as soon as it is available. The utilities used to collect this information must be developed, and may be of benefit to our users in determining the proper level of CPU Parking, or potentially the aggressiveness at which is applied (the mysterious new setting I alluded to).
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on August 31, 2012, 08:37:38 PM
... and what I've done (just now) is add a 'slider control' to ParkControl, as a compliment to the confusing integers. The fact that Microsoft made the integers inverse of what is intuitive makes this a necessary addition. That way you can slide it from minimum parking (100) to maximum parking (0).
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on August 31, 2012, 08:52:22 PM
Quote
The entire linux community is very against maintaining support for legacy applications and systems, they toss them out so fast I can't keep up at times.
Agree.

Quote
4. When disabling CPU Parking, I strongly recommend using ParkControl or Process Lasso's ProBalance over manual registry edits. They do it the 'right way'.
And reduce the time to showing the setting in Power Plans and changing by open Power Plans-advanced etc.....
----
Quote
5. Any beneficial impact on a reduction in core thrashing has not been demonstrated, to my knowledge and experience.
I think if the L2/L3 cache is high latency until it is no enough time for it to cache, with the time the thread is processing.
Or the L2/L3 is having less read/write speed(If I recall right, the things can affect on L3 is read/write speed and the storage space)
Then it maybe getting less performance in core thrashing.
----
Quote
6. Too little information and guidance has been provided by Microsoft.
Yup.
----
Quote
I will release a compiled list of default parking behaviors of Windows on various systems as soon as it is available. The utilities used to collect this information must be developed, and may be of benefit to our users in determining the proper level of CPU Parking, or potentially the aggressiveness at which is applied (the mysterious new setting I alluded to).
And the problem is, how many time is needed  ;)
----
Quote
... and what I've done (just now) is add a 'slider control' to ParkControl, as a compliment to the confusing integers. The fact that Microsoft made the integers inverse of what is intuitive makes this a necessary addition. That way you can slide it from minimum parking (100) to maximum parking (0).
As it is confusing, because they think it is"how many core it can be parked", not "how many core it can be un-parked"   ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on September 01, 2012, 11:02:54 AM
... and what I've done (just now) is add a 'slider control' to ParkControl, as a compliment to the confusing integers. The fact that Microsoft made the integers inverse of what is intuitive makes this a necessary addition. That way you can slide it from minimum parking (100) to maximum parking (0).

That will be a nice touch.  :)
Guess I have opened a can of worms again, if it's not the 0s it's the 1s  :P
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on September 01, 2012, 11:19:35 AM
That will be a nice touch.  :)
Guess I have opened a can of worms again, if it's not the 0s it's the 1s  :P
This is true for 2-bits world  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 01, 2012, 12:56:13 PM
The sliders are really cool, will try to release new ParkControl today. Much easier to use. One for AC, one for DC.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 01, 2012, 02:54:47 PM
I cleaned up the About CPU Parking (http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php) page *some*, though further works needs done. It is still a lot better than it was.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 01, 2012, 04:21:41 PM
.. and the new slider controls I was referring to. I haven't yet completed the code, want to make sure it is all right before I release.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on September 01, 2012, 05:38:55 PM
Looking good.

Feeling quite spoilt by all these updates.  How will I cope when PL is perfect?!   :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 01, 2012, 05:42:46 PM
It will never be perfect, nor complete ;p. Trust me, my todo list I think has over 1K items, lol.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on September 01, 2012, 08:13:51 PM
Quote
my todo list I think has over 1K items
Just like this.
I having 5 thing that haven done yet today, so I add into todo list.
And the next time I try to finish the todo list, but I only finish 2 of it, and the today works I haven done, so I add into todo list also.
Repeat and repeat...
This is my life, lol
But one days, I feel great, so I finish all the todo list, and it start repeat again the next day...
----
And the UI look great  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 01, 2012, 08:18:22 PM
Yes, that is how it happened to me too ;p.

BTW, I have fixed and changed a number of things today, and some of the new ParkControl sliders I'm still working on. Therefore, it *might* be possible a beta is issued with the new sliders temporarily non-visible. However you will know they are going to show up shortly.

One of the things I've done is restored the CPU Eater demo to within the installer. I stupidly forgot that I allowed it to be launched from within Process Lasso, hence users would see an error when trying to launch it from within Process Lasso.

Another modification allows launching Process Lasso again when it is already running, but not having to see a UAC elevation prompt just to have the old instance invoke its main window.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on September 01, 2012, 08:43:06 PM
Quote
Therefore, it *might* be possible a beta is issued with the new sliders temporarily non-visible. However you will know they are going to show up shortly.
That fine, as I has facing this before when using other software.
Quote
I stupidly forgot that I allowed it to be launched from within Process Lasso, hence users would see an error when trying to launch it from within Process Lasso.
And how about when you coding the New Updater.
6.Can download advanced tools software (CPU Eater)when running it from PL
So user can getting it back when clicking on it(if you remove it again).  ;)
----
Quote
Another modification allows launching Process Lasso again when it is already running, but not having to see a UAC elevation prompt just to have the old instance invoke its main window.
UAC is not enable in this computer.  :)
And I know the risk.

Quote
Yes, that is how it happened to me too ;p.
And this is life.  ;D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 01, 2012, 08:50:03 PM
I am not sure of your question about the CPU Eater and updater, but the auto-updater will restore it if missing from the current install. I could have users download and run it 'on demand', but it is so small, I might as well just include it in the package. I don't know what I was thinking when I removed it. I guess I figured most users used the stand-alone version, and I have so many menu items I forgot I added one to launch CPU Eater from within Process Lasso.

I released a beta to start testing some changes. The new ParkControl changes I had to hide because they are not yet finished. You can tell where they are hidden though ;).

The new launcher is also not ready because I must rewrite some mechanisms due to system security of unelevated processes communicating with elevated processes. I further have to do extensive testing in multi-user environments.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on September 01, 2012, 09:11:51 PM
Nice hiding  ;D
----
That what I mean, but I love to having the CPU eater when I download the Installer.
Because when you making it 'on demand', more codes is waiting for you.

And I recall that, the on demand downloading data is useful for some 2d online game.
Like HTML5/flash game for example  ;)
----
Quote
The new launcher is also not ready because I must rewrite some mechanisms due to system security of unelevated processes communicating with elevated processes. I further have to do extensive testing in multi-user environments.
And the problem is ghosting the Flash Player also  ;D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 03, 2012, 12:03:53 AM
ParkControl has been updated. It is a bit early, hot off the presses. Please let me know if you experience any troubles. http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on September 03, 2012, 07:59:19 AM
Have just installed the update to x.1.5
Noticed my sliders are slightly obscured in comparison to your ss.
Purely cosmetic issue I guess.

The radio buttons - as in the ss - neither shown as active.  Correct state?

Beyond that I must thrash the system a bit to see if anything important occurs.  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on September 03, 2012, 08:24:19 AM
I think it need more space at bottom of the sliders.
Because different font size will pushing sliders down.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 03, 2012, 05:46:57 PM
Ok, thanks for letting me know, I will add it! Just put it on today's TODO list ...
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 03, 2012, 08:25:56 PM
Adjustment made. I will upload a new build soon. It should provide enough additional bottom space, but if not, let me know.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on September 24, 2012, 06:55:43 AM
En....
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Windows-Software-122001/Tests/Windows-8-Test-1018303/
It show that, in windows 8, the gaming performance is decreased, maybe another core-parking issue?
Because the BF3 and Shogun 2: Total War is increased, but the lightweight game is decreased.
I need the time!!!!
And the internet QoS(you know that....) to find some person to test it...
----
BTW, I think is because the windows 8 is aim at the tablet etc, so it has tweaking the core-parking more aggressive, to saving the energy on the mobile(all mobile, the ultrabook also)  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 24, 2012, 03:23:53 PM
Hmm... That doesn't jive with the overall Windows 8 experience, and the fact that gaming performance should be near identical, if not better. When I get time I will dig into the reports in depth. Right now I have days left to get a pretty major new version out.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on September 24, 2012, 03:52:25 PM
I have been following this feature but is there a list of cpu that support parking with latest OS .

On Intel side is it only ones with HT ?

I have 3570k (4 core , no HT 3.4/3.8ghz)  and even with stock power option of balanced no of cores were parked  (I tested in resource meter ) . I personally don't want it on but just wondering what factors there are . seems power profile has affect along with bios if you disable it .
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 24, 2012, 05:35:33 PM
The pre-requisites are at least 2 logical processors and Windows NT 6.0 or above. The supported CPUs vary substantially. Processors as recent as the Phenom II (AMD's famous x6 processor that *still* holds its own since it has 6 truly independent cores) don't support core parking. It is something that can also be toggled in the BIOS on many systems. If your PC supports it, the one thing you can be sure of is that you will see it in the Resource Monitor. No need to try to make your PC idle, it will park even at nearly 50% total CPU (averaged over all cores) load on many of my systems.

Another way to be sure is to try to enable it with ParkControl. If the settings go back to disabled when you restart ParkControl, it is not supported (i'm working on improving this). Note that you can manually edit the registry and 'trick' ParkControl, but you can NOT trick the actual OS.

Something also to keep in mind (for other readers) is that the resource monitor only shows you the parked state during its last sample. In fact, a core may enter and leave parking 100s of times a second!

 
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on September 24, 2012, 07:22:27 PM
The pre-requisites are at least 2 logical processors and Windows NT 6.0 or above. The supported CPUs vary substantially. Processors as recent as the Phenom II (AMD's famous x6 processor that *still* holds its own since it has 6 truly independent cores) don't support core parking. It is something that can also be toggled in the BIOS on many systems. If your PC supports it, the one thing you can be sure of is that you will see it in the Resource Monitor. No need to try to make your PC idle, it will park even at nearly 50% total CPU (averaged over all cores) load on many of my systems.

Another way to be sure is to try to enable it with ParkControl. If the settings go back to disabled when you restart ParkControl, it is not supported (i'm working on improving this). Note that you can manually edit the registry and 'trick' ParkControl, but you can NOT trick the actual OS.

Something also to keep in mind (for other readers) is that the resource monitor only shows you the parked state during its last sample. In fact, a core may enter and leave parking 100s of times a second!
Ok , thanks I did read up on it but everwhere it is a little hazy on details, I guess this is because of vast HW and software involved .

I didn't try an enable it with parkControl , I did open it but nothing was enabled and values were 0 but that was with hi power profile .

I take it to enable for most it needs to be either hacked or use powercfg command line string ?

I saw a hack that seems to add the option in power option profile , is that the hack you speak of .

IS the parkcontrol editing the reg to do its settings ?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 24, 2012, 07:40:23 PM
Ok , thanks I did read up on it but everwhere it is a little hazy on details, I guess this is because of vast HW and software involved .

I will build into ParkControl the determination of whether the hardware, OS, and BIOS support core parking if possible.

Quote
I saw a hack that seems to add the option in power option profile , is that the hack you speak of .

No, that is a different hack. The hack I refer to is people searching their registries for the power UUID of this particular sub-feature of CPU power management, and editing every instance (one instance per power profile). ParkControl only uses these registry entries to quickly *read* the state, it doesn't use them to modify the state. Why? This was just easier.

Quote
IS the parkcontrol editing the reg to do its settings ?

No, absolutely NOT. It is doing what powercfg.exe does - uses the NT 6+ Power Management APIs. Like I said, it does use the registry to quickly determine the current configuration though.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on September 24, 2012, 08:23:49 PM
ok, thanks

that answers all my questions  :)

Ed
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on September 25, 2012, 01:12:24 PM
Just doing a fresh OS install & I've added PL x.36.

The sliders now display properly, but I can no longer assign % PC to the individual power profiles....  ???
I haven't tried to edit the ini manually (It takes forever to do an OS etc the way I want it from scratch.)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 25, 2012, 02:53:24 PM
What are you referring to exactly?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on September 26, 2012, 07:26:32 AM
This dialog used to trim the bottom of the slider gfx - not anymore
The ability to set CP per power profile doesn't work.  (Mistakenly put PC in last post not CP!)
I thought it used to? :-[
Or has hours of windows updates made me (more) crazy?   :o
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on September 26, 2012, 10:31:29 AM
Working at here.
With all the update installed.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 26, 2012, 12:20:42 PM
Oh I see what you are talking about. I believe this is a change to your individual Windows display/personalization settings, but is a problem I need to address.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on September 27, 2012, 06:27:21 AM
I still cannot get CP to work per power profile on my new install.  (SSD - clean OS install+win updates)

x.36 installed (PL also uninstalled & reinstalled) will not hold CP settings. 
x.36 does hold these settings on a regular HDD.
eg:-  if I enter - power saver 75%; hi perf  0%; balanced 50% - each setting 'sticks' after hitting apply on the HDD.  (Red herring I think)  :P
Currently on the SSD when I hit 'apply'  - HP turns off, balanced goes to 50 & PS goes to enabled @0 - regardless of what I enter.  :o

So I am wondering if I need something that isn't installed yet?  A C++ redist etc?
Maybe I should try an earlier build or edit the ini... will keep playing about as time allows.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 27, 2012, 04:07:57 PM
The situation you describe is odd. Normally I would say the system just does not support core parking. See PatrkControl Core Parking Help (http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php#helpme).

There are no C++ redistributables required since I use static linking, and you'd know if there was something missing.

Is there ANY OTHER power management software installed? Anything from your OEM or motherboard manufacturer?

In the meantime, I will at least be addressing the cosmetic issues at larger font sizes..

EDIT: I suspect that for some reason Windows has turned off Core Parking after your reinstall. Was it a different edition of Windows?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on September 27, 2012, 04:24:06 PM
Thanks for the quick response.
I thought that all dependencies were covered but was double checking  ;)
The install is the 'same', same media used, only possible/probable differences would be related to updates & the fact that this SSD is AHCI & the other SATA HDD was on IDE mode only.
The original HDD was disconnected but if I switch drives from SSD to old HDD CP is OK again.

How do I check if Windows allows CP?  I can use res mon to see real-time but is there a switch somewhere?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on September 27, 2012, 04:40:46 PM
There isn't a switch anywhere in Windows, but there is in the BIOS sometimes - though I'd imagine you'd realize if you changed a BIOS setting, so that's not likely. I must think on this more, and also provide more information in ParkControl on the status of core parking (capable or not).
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on September 27, 2012, 05:35:36 PM
So you have 2 boot drives, one HDD and 1 SDD . the SSD is new install ?

Could it be when you installed on SSD you didn't use MB chipset drivers and got windows drivers instead . I don't know if that would make a deference on power config but it might . It is always good idea to disable device drivers from getting window updates till all your hardware have installed manufacture drivers first (MB, Vid ,network etc ).
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on September 28, 2012, 02:21:57 PM
@Capt.Bitsum
The BIOS confirms that the CPU Active Core Control (AMD RD890fx) is fully enabled.  (& presumably would have to be for it to work on the HDD install.)  ;)
Basically this type of behavior from PL is why I started this thread when I used a beta version on a mechanical drive.  Connection somewhere in the code?

@edkiefer
ACPI is correctly configured in BIOS
I can multi-boot if there is more than one OS resident drive present.
I have a boot manager on a non-OS HDD that I use to boot various drives as & when. The SSD was installed with no other drives connected using the AHCI setting that SSD apparently require.
The use of the manufacturers drivers is not advised & tests on performance show a 30+% drop in SSD speeds if the non default MS drivers are used.  Win7 generic AHCI drivers correctly identify the controllers & perform a lot better.
Having run with both configs I can say the drivers don't impact PLs failure to behave as previously.

I am wondering what can clash but I haven't figured it out yet....   ::)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on September 28, 2012, 03:58:07 PM
ok, I don't know on AMD systems, but on Intel I always load Intel MB and drivers (SATA, Chipset etc ). MS doesn't support all features AFAIK .

I don't know on SDD's so can't help there either .
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on September 28, 2012, 04:26:39 PM
@edkiefer
NM.  Thanks for thinking about it   ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 01, 2012, 07:36:55 AM
In my continuing search for differences that would make PL reject CP settings I noticed that :-
New install
Quote
OocDisableCoreParkingWhileIn=True
Old install
Quote
OocDisableCoreParkingWhileIn=False
Changing it to match had no impact, unsurprisingly.
Where else could I be looking for settings writes?

I have examined my PM settings in BIOS & Win & can see nothing different that would (obviously) impact CP.  BIOS is definitely set to allow CP.
PL just will not accept setting changes it seems. 
I have added all PL files to my AV exclusions on the off-chance.

I have wondered if the SSD GC routines could demand cores to be active but it seems unlikely that that would be able to block PL settings.

I am primarily assuming the CP is not working however, on the basis that the PL dialogs do not respond, it may be simply the dialogs not behaving I guess.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on October 01, 2012, 09:34:09 AM
Are you using a different controller in device manager between the 2 setups (HDD vs SDD ), any power management settings there ?

OocDisableCoreParkingWhileIn=False

that is setting in probalance screen , last entry . Disable cpu core parking during probalance is restraint .
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 01, 2012, 11:48:23 AM
Maybe you can try to remove the core in the device manager, and let the os redetect the processor.
Or reinstall os?
----
Just test the HT with Core-parking, soft-disable the HT by using max core to un-park to 50%.
And getting 10% increase with this way, but I lack of time to test that, will it the same by disable HT in bios. ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 01, 2012, 02:14:24 PM
Had to do a clean install of OS  but there are no  differences that I know of without a byte-for-byte compare.   (no intentional differences that is)
The drives may be a red herring as it is the most obvious difference.  No additional PM seen in dev man.  I am not sure why a drive mode would affect CP.  They should be separate threads as far as PM goes surely? 
I will say that on the HDD the PL install was gradually upgraded to the current build - this was straight into x.36 & now upgraded to x.42.

Didn't expect the restraint/CP setting would make any impact but it was the only difference so tried it to see if there was a domino effect...

Need s/thing to actively display whether CP is active within Win or not to determine whether it is the PL dialog that is broken for some reason.  Once that is obvious I will be able to able to say more.

0cc5b647-c1df-4637-891a-dec35c318583  shows these values - see attached - & has what I would expect to be the normal number of instances & variables for 3 PM profiles.  All reflect the valuemax (100) statement.
Then there are these (sub)statements which can be 100 or 50.  Relevant?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 01, 2012, 02:27:35 PM
The ParkControl (http://bitsum.com/parkcontrol.php) dialog determines if parking is enabled by simply checking the registry values associated with it for each power profile. It makes modifications using the proper commands, but checks using this mechanism. Thus, it does NOT do a proper check of system compatibility of CPU core parking. This is on the TODO list ...  If you edit the registry, you can trick ParkControl. You won't trick the OS though.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 02, 2012, 06:20:43 AM
That raises the point I am leaning towards - on this install I suspect that something is blocking the PL writes to CP settings.  Comodo isn't logging any blocks to writes & PL is given full exclusions in the AV.  PL believes it has applied the settings but dialogs & registry seem to disagree. 
It doesn't 'feel' like it is applying settings when I click apply, something about the way the dialog closes - not clean if you know what I mean.

I was wondering if there was any prog out there which does display CP activity - I have yet to find one so if it is added to PL it will be useful. 

Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 02, 2012, 08:30:27 AM
That is possible, though unlikely and not something I've ever heard of. I've only seen cases where the OS refuses to 'take' these values if manually set, and refuses to set them if programmatically instructed to set.

I have been working on showing which cores are parked. Pretty simple to use a different color for them. If it weren't for some daily distraction I'd likely have that done by now.

There are lots of programs out there. The Resource Monitor built into Windows for one, it is great. If this is XP or below, then core parking is not supported by the OS.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 02, 2012, 10:27:47 AM
In my case the OS is 7x64 & PL park control works fine on my old install.
Resmon doesn't show me the info I want as far as I can see - ie the OS setting - I am assuming the reg entry above shows that the scheme is possible & active.  Resmon & perfmon only give me the readout that it has come into effect I think.
powercfg/q gives
Quote
Power Setting GUID: bc5038f7-23e0-4960-96da-33abaf5935ec  (Maximum processor
 state)
      Minimum Possible Setting: 0x00000000
      Maximum Possible Setting: 0x00000064
      Possible Settings increment: 0x00000001
      Possible Settings units: %
    Current AC Power Setting Index: 0x00000064
    Current DC Power Setting Index: 0x00000064
Again I assume this is the correct state as ...0064 is full control is it not?

At this point I am more interested in hunting down why it's not behaving as before...
Not life or death, just something I want to tear apart.  :P
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 02, 2012, 11:27:07 AM
The setting 0x64 = 100d (100%) disables CPU core parking. It is the % of cores that must remain *unparked* at all times. It may be disabled for whatever reason.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 02, 2012, 01:45:39 PM
Thanks for that
so it would be
Possible Settings units: 0x64 = 100d (100%)
if CP were to be disabled?
I can't find
0x64 = 100d or 0x64
in the registry so there is something else going on I think.
But I Don't want to drain too much of your time.  I will continue poling around.  :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 02, 2012, 02:33:53 PM
Maybe ProcessMonitor will help you  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 02, 2012, 04:00:26 PM
I meant, in programmer jargon, 64 hexadecimal is 100 in decimal, which is 100% .. so 100% of your CPUs are set to remain active (unparked) when that value is set for this power profile subsystem sub-setting.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 04, 2012, 03:36:31 PM
BYH - I had forgotten about Sysinternals... better dig it up  ;)

Quote
I meant, in programmer jargon, .....
I thought it may have been but I thought I'd take a walk on the wild side.  :)
I must try monitoring failed reg writes.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 04, 2012, 04:33:48 PM
I hope you will found the cause~
---
OT
The Pl GUI on the netbook is fine, with just 10-15%(without scrolling) ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 07, 2012, 10:38:26 AM
After a bit of playing with Procmon:-
Most frequent activity by PL -
Quote
15:28:33.6148985   processlasso.exe   2016   RegQueryKey   HKCU   SUCCESS   Query: HandleTags, HandleTags: 0x0
15:28:33.6149136   processlasso.exe   2016   RegCreateKey   HKCU\Software\ProcessLasso   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Read
15:28:33.6149749   processlasso.exe   2016   RegQueryValue   HKCU\Software\ProcessLasso\ColorScheme   SUCCESS   Type: REG_DWORD, Length: 4, Data: 0
15:28:33.6149922   processlasso.exe   2016   RegCloseKey   HKCU\Software\ProcessLasso   SUCCESS   
  (Presume GFX updating)

Followed by
Quote
15:18:51.0858978   processlasso.exe   2016   RegQueryValue   HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\PERFLIB\Disable Performance Counters   NAME NOT FOUND   Length: 20

& when I try to alter setting in CP control

Quote
15:30:27.1539253   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Read Attributes, Disposition: Open, Options: Open For Backup, Open Reparse Point, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Write, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:30:27.1540311   processlasso.exe   2016   QueryBasicInformationFile   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   CreationTime: 14/07/2009 00:27:42, LastAccessTime: 14/07/2009 00:27:42, LastWriteTime: 14/07/2009 02:39:27, ChangeTime: 26/09/2012 06:18:03, FileAttributes: A
15:30:27.1540526   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   
15:30:27.1541735   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Generic Read, Disposition: Open, Options: Synchronous IO Non-Alert, Non-Directory File, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:30:27.1543075   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   FILE LOCKED WITH ONLY READERS   SyncType: SyncTypeCreateSection, PageProtection:
15:30:27.1543835   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   SyncType: SyncTypeOther
15:30:27.1544653   processlasso.exe   2016   Load Image   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   Image Base: 0xff540000, Image Size: 0x16000
15:30:27.1544852   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   
15:30:27.1546946   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Windows\System32\en-US\powercfg.exe.mui   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Generic Read, Disposition: Open, Options: , Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:30:27.1547395   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Windows\System32\en-US\powercfg.exe.mui   FILE LOCKED WITH ONLY READERS   SyncType: SyncTypeCreateSection, PageProtection:
15:30:27.1547565   processlasso.exe   2016   QueryStandardInformationFile   C:\Windows\System32\en-US\powercfg.exe.mui   SUCCESS   AllocationSize: 57,344, EndOfFile: 54,272, NumberOfLinks: 2, DeletePending: False, Directory: False
15:30:27.1548046   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Windows\System32\en-US\powercfg.exe.mui   SUCCESS   SyncType: SyncTypeOther
15:30:27.1548610   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Windows\System32\en-US\powercfg.exe.mui   SUCCESS   
15:30:27.1550733   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Read Attributes, Disposition: Open, Options: Open For Backup, Open Reparse Point, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Write, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:30:27.1551689   processlasso.exe   2016   QueryBasicInformationFile   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   CreationTime: 14/07/2009 00:27:42, LastAccessTime: 14/07/2009 00:27:42, LastWriteTime: 14/07/2009 02:39:27, ChangeTime: 26/09/2012 06:18:03, FileAttributes: A
15:30:27.1551884   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   
15:30:27.1552975   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Generic Read, Disposition: Open, Options: Synchronous IO Non-Alert, Non-Directory File, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:30:27.1553972   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   FILE LOCKED WITH ONLY READERS   SyncType: SyncTypeCreateSection, PageProtection:
15:30:27.1554597   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   SyncType: SyncTypeOther
15:30:27.1555114   processlasso.exe   2016   Load Image   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   Image Base: 0xff540000, Image Size: 0x16000
15:30:27.1555287   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.exe   SUCCESS   
15:30:27.1557352   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Windows\System32\en-US\powercfg.exe.mui   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Generic Read, Disposition: Open, Options: , Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:30:27.1557948   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Windows\System32\en-US\powercfg.exe.mui   FILE LOCKED WITH ONLY READERS   SyncType: SyncTypeCreateSection, PageProtection:
15:30:27.1558106   processlasso.exe   2016   QueryStandardInformationFile   C:\Windows\System32\en-US\powercfg.exe.mui   SUCCESS   AllocationSize: 57,344, EndOfFile: 54,272, NumberOfLinks: 2, DeletePending: False, Directory: False
15:30:27.1558461   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Windows\System32\en-US\powercfg.exe.mui   SUCCESS   SyncType: SyncTypeOther
15:30:27.1558978   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Windows\System32\en-US\powercfg.exe.mui   SUCCESS   

& I did find this -
Quote
15:21:30.1228489   processlasso.exe   2016   Thread Exit      SUCCESS   Thread ID: 5560, User Time: 0.0000000, Kernel Time: 0.0156001
15:21:30.7256173   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Read Attributes, Disposition: Open, Options: Open For Backup, Open Reparse Point, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Write, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:21:30.7256535   processlasso.exe   2016   QueryBasicInformationFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   CreationTime: 30/09/2012 17:28:56, LastAccessTime: 27/09/2012 10:53:54, LastWriteTime: 07/10/2012 06:44:38, ChangeTime: 07/10/2012 13:47:12, FileAttributes: ANCI
15:21:30.7256702   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   
15:21:30.7257741   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Generic Read, Disposition: Open, Options: Synchronous IO Non-Alert, Non-Directory File, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:21:30.7258257   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   FILE LOCKED WITH ONLY READERS   SyncType: SyncTypeCreateSection, PageProtection:
15:21:30.7258844   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   SyncType: SyncTypeOther
15:21:30.7259405   processlasso.exe   2016   Load Image   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   Image Base: 0x13f850000, Image Size: 0x2d000
15:21:30.7259581   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   
15:21:30.7261544   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Read Attributes, Disposition: Open, Options: Open For Backup, Open Reparse Point, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Write, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:21:30.7261852   processlasso.exe   2016   QueryBasicInformationFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   CreationTime: 30/09/2012 17:28:56, LastAccessTime: 27/09/2012 10:53:54, LastWriteTime: 07/10/2012 06:44:38, ChangeTime: 07/10/2012 13:47:12, FileAttributes: ANCI
15:21:30.7262009   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   
15:21:30.7262936   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Generic Read, Disposition: Open, Options: Synchronous IO Non-Alert, Non-Directory File, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:21:30.7263362   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   FILE LOCKED WITH ONLY READERS   SyncType: SyncTypeCreateSection, PageProtection:
15:21:30.7263869   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   SyncType: SyncTypeOther
15:21:30.7264324   processlasso.exe   2016   Load Image   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   Image Base: 0x13f850000, Image Size: 0x2d000
15:21:30.7264478   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   

Nothing jumps out at me but I hope that's just me!  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 07, 2012, 10:44:11 AM
one more for luck
Quote
15:40:29.5338368   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Read Attributes, Disposition: Open, Options: Open For Backup, Open Reparse Point, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Write, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:40:29.5338750   processlasso.exe   2016   QueryBasicInformationFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   CreationTime: 30/09/2012 17:28:56, LastAccessTime: 27/09/2012 10:53:54, LastWriteTime: 07/10/2012 06:44:38, ChangeTime: 07/10/2012 13:47:12, FileAttributes: ANCI
15:40:29.5338958   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   
15:40:29.5340100   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Generic Read, Disposition: Open, Options: Synchronous IO Non-Alert, Non-Directory File, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:40:29.5340651   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   FILE LOCKED WITH ONLY READERS   SyncType: SyncTypeCreateSection, PageProtection:
15:40:29.5341315   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   SyncType: SyncTypeOther
15:40:29.5342146   processlasso.exe   2016   Load Image   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   Image Base: 0x13f130000, Image Size: 0x2d000
15:40:29.5342351   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   
15:40:29.5344727   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Read Attributes, Disposition: Open, Options: Open For Backup, Open Reparse Point, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Write, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:40:29.5345263   processlasso.exe   2016   QueryBasicInformationFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   CreationTime: 30/09/2012 17:28:56, LastAccessTime: 27/09/2012 10:53:54, LastWriteTime: 07/10/2012 06:44:38, ChangeTime: 07/10/2012 13:47:12, FileAttributes: ANCI
15:40:29.5345548   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   
15:40:29.5346783   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   Desired Access: Generic Read, Disposition: Open, Options: Synchronous IO Non-Alert, Non-Directory File, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, OpenResult: Opened
15:40:29.5347354   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   FILE LOCKED WITH ONLY READERS   SyncType: SyncTypeCreateSection, PageProtection:
15:40:29.5348130   processlasso.exe   2016   CreateFileMapping   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   SyncType: SyncTypeOther
15:40:29.5348681   processlasso.exe   2016   Load Image   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   Image Base: 0x13f130000, Image Size: 0x2d000
15:40:29.5348864   processlasso.exe   2016   CloseFile   C:\Program Files\Process Lasso\ParkControl.exe   SUCCESS   

Build x.57b BTW
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 07, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
Wait...
Did the ProBalance "disable CPU Core Parking" also did not work?
And why you filter only processlasso.exe, but not ParkControl.exe? :o
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 08, 2012, 05:25:26 AM
I don't know the point of any of the posts, but maybe I am missing something? The ProcMon logs all look exactly normal.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 08, 2012, 07:17:30 AM
@ BYH - look again.  Parkcontrol is recorded above.

The point of the posts -
https://bitsum.com/forum/index.php/topic,1702.msg8883.html#msg8883 (https://bitsum.com/forum/index.php/topic,1702.msg8883.html#msg8883)

I'm looking for an anomaly which would explain why the CP dialogs apparently no longer allow me to assign individual settings per power profile.  [They do not update/hold updated settings when 'apply' is hit]
I guess I could record the screen activity as a movie file to prove I'm not just making this up.

I'd imagined recording my reg activity might reveal something.  The fact it doesn't appear to suggest the problem lies elsewhere.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 08, 2012, 07:27:48 AM
Actually, before I make a butt of myself again, let me investigate this more thoroughly before I dismiss it ... there may be some bug in the Apply button, I will check the logic to be sure! However, for any reader, if the ParkControl settings do not seem to 'take' after you restart the utility, then it means your PC is not compatible with core parking. Whether the CPU, the OS, or the BIOS.

I will report back on this.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 08, 2012, 10:32:51 AM
Quote
Parkcontrol is recorded above.
I only saw that, the PL process is open/closing the Parkcontrol.
And the PL is setting the Core-parking.
You should monitor also the Parkcontrol process, so you can see what it is doing. :)
Quote
if the ParkControl settings do not seem to 'take' after you restart the utility, then it means your PC is not compatible with core parking. Whether the CPU, the OS, or the BIOS.
Nope, just has some test with a bios that disable c3&c6 before.
The core-parking is stop working, but the setting is still can be set, can be read correctly, and I can use "max-core remain parking" to soft-disable the HT core ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 08, 2012, 10:39:06 AM
Yea, there may very well be some logistical errors in certain usage patterns, I am checking it out. I definitely need to add some good real-time monitoring, as well as detection of whether parking is even available.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 09, 2012, 08:31:37 AM
To reiterate, it's not life & death, but I would like to know why CP 'stopped working' on a clean OS install.
Attached image suggests CP is available to me (if not to everyone).  1090T+890fx

Knowing you won't have a system config'd exactly the same as I have, means I am poking around to see if I can render any useful data to the investigation.
The reason I'm noticing anomalies is the fact that the CP dialog won't hold settings despite saying it has succeeded.
Any other debugging tools I can run to snapshot the events that would be useful?

@BYH - the coreparking.exe was only invoked once during settings 'change' & the reg capture.  I expected to be invoked several times as I made several changes.
I used a filter related to all PL processes.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 17, 2012, 05:59:30 PM
Some of the HPET and Core-Parking.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=368604
And it seen like the power saving on the windows 8
bcdedit /set disabledynamictick yes
Is also causing the gaming performance is reduced.
The HPET is based on the motherboard, maybe there are difference chip???
----
And
http://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/hackers/2012-March/005553.html
So will some software(like games) will getting the performance from the microsecond-precision, or it is can use only with watching the time? :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 21, 2012, 09:37:59 AM
BYH - interesting but my 7 install isn't impacted by altering HPET as far as CP goes.
PL will not (appear to) hold any CP settings beyond default in the dialog.
Now on x.73b
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 21, 2012, 12:36:45 PM
HPET(Timer Resolution) is affect the DPC delays ;D
So that the graphic card driver(if playing online game, network card also) can transfer the data ASAP ;)
Some person disable that in BIOS can get a better result, but it need a stable TSC, a stable frequency with the processor(if I am right :P).
So it need to disable many power save like EIST, C3&C6 etc when disable HPET, maybe a overclocker with all of this(and HPET) disable will getting a better Timer Resolution.

And some person get a smoother mouse with HPET enable in bios and os, but they are not saying that, which mouse hz are they are using.
125hz, 500hz or 1000hz?

The information is insufficient, and with the game windowed, it is affect by DWM(vsync) also.

I will Google more about it first.  ;)
----
Maybe your user name, computer name etc is affecting the ParkControl?
Or maybe you has disable the power save(with registry) to getting a better result of SSD?
A reinstall or changing the windows installer is some ways that I know. :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 21, 2012, 11:13:27 PM
Dunno what this is all about exactly, but HPET is only useful for measurements afaik, it in itself doesn't speed anything up. It does let developers know how fast code is and things like that - and allow for more precise multimedia playback and other operations I suppose. Anyway, that is what a timer is. The default timer is 10ms, which suffices for most tasks, but not for many tasks.

Note that it has nothing to do with CPU scheduling too, as it is again simply a timer. Windows NT6+ actually uses a cycle based CPU scheduling approach that is pretty cool, instead of time slices they are more like cycle slices.

The QueryPerformanceCounter and related APIs are used to access any higher precision counter available, which is normally always available - at least since 2005. I use it for code profiling, e.g. determining how fast something executes. Rarely I have a need to use a high precision timer in the wild, though it does happen - Process Lasso uses them in places.

Summary:

HPET is *nothing* related to performance, at *all*. It is just a high precision clock to get the current time, used for comparing times. It is also useful for multimedia playback that must remain in sync, etc...
Do not muck around with the default timing precision of your system.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 22, 2012, 02:00:44 AM
Ya, so I am thinking why the HPET will affect the mouse movements, boot time and the FPS in the games. :)
Because the Nvidia website also provide a tools to check the accuracy of the QueryPerformanceCounter and related APIs too.  ;)

And the timer will change to 1ms when playing game, video(flash also include) music etc.

So, maybe it will getting a better result because the sync for TSC+HPET has some problem?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 22, 2012, 02:12:57 AM
No, it will not really affect your mouse, boot time, or FPS ... Nvidia may provide the tool to make sure FPS measurements are made accurately, that's all. Or maybe they make use of them to synchronize something. You are not going to find any magic bullet in adjusting the system timer resolution. It should not be adjusted.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 22, 2012, 02:50:07 AM
I know it will not, because I has testing it myself too.
But I am lack of hardware to testing the heavy load games.

Just curious why they are getting a better result, maybe they are just getting the FPS measurements more accurate?
I don't know  :)
And about Timer resolution, it is changed to 1ms when you are running the software that needed automatic, except Windows XP ;D
For example, CS 1.6, when running in Windows XP, they need to force the Timer resolution to 1ms and getting a better performance.
Like playing a music with WMP, pause and minimize it.
---
The Nvidia page
http://www.nvidia.com/object/timer_function_performance.html
---
And I know it is force using HPET when overclocking FSB and the timer is faster. the software/games running faster, or something like that.
Maybe we need to wait for some software that need 1us timer to testing it?  ;D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 22, 2012, 01:00:41 PM
BYH is still Red Herring king! ;D ;)

I doubted it would impact my issue but was interesting to see how it has a kind of non-implementation by MS when someone has obviously spent some time developing the hardware.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 22, 2012, 01:31:13 PM
Thank, I love to eat fish  ;D
Wait a second, I am eating myself? :o
----
But in the guru3d, they are still having some people getting the mouse more great.
Quote
Got this enabled now folks, thanks very much, mouse feels great now.
Peace.
I wonder did it cause by the interval between the sync of the TSC+HEPT?
And did their mouse is using 125hz or 500/100hz?
If they are using 125hz and feeling more great, I think it is cause by the "more precise" of the HPET or the sync?
And did they has the mouse accelerate enable?

There are too many variable to kill. :P

Maybe the best way is asking them. :)
But it is too many to ask, I think they will looking me like, a E.T. :P
---
So, how did your Core-Parking?
Fixed or not? :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 22, 2012, 05:45:48 PM
I debated as I was knocking the timer about the mouse. Then I thought of the USB bus, then the PCI bus (or other bus), all the other things involved all the way up the chain, then the fact that the *maximum* system timer resolution is going to be 10ms .. and wondered how lowering this could possibly be helpful. While it might seem like it would allow your mouse to respond faster, I just don't see it. The *biggest* problems with mice is wireless ones and WiFi interference, no kidding. It is a huge issue that nobody has written much about (except me). I see it all the time, tried every channel I can.

I would have to study what all they are doing exactly before I make definitive statements I suppose. For all I know there is a bug in some common mouse driver.

This is all severely off topic.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 23, 2012, 12:34:06 AM
Sorry for off topic, because they are testing the core parking in the topic also. :)

But I think the mouse having difference timer, as I set it as 1ms(1000hz), but it still work as 1000hz when the system timer resolution is 15.6ms.
The mouse is 125hz(8ms) for normal mouse, but it can be hack the driver to 500hz-1000hz(don't try it with a bad mouse, as I having a mouse that become weak after hacking it...)

From 125hz(8ms) to 500hz(2ms) is a big changing for the mouse, and the respond of the mouse too.
Because the mouse can send the information more faster, and changing this will getting the mouse accelerate more faster as the information is getting more.
But I don't know it will adding how many overhead for game process.
----
Yup, the WiFi interference is the biggest problem for WiFi mouse(WiFi too), but it is ok when the distance between the mouse and the receiver is just <5cm ;D
But it is strange when many people has tried to fixing it with changing the WiFi channel, receiver etc, but fail to fixing it too.
I am not with the WiFi mouse that having this problem, so I can't do research without the hardware...

But I am using the RTS (Request to Send) to fixing the problem for the WiFi network, when bridging with other AP(same channel),
It affect more when the receiver is the Smart Phone with a p2p software....
But it can't fix the buffer problem. :P (like the download speed is 2Mbps, but the WiFi speed is only 512Kbps...), it need the ACM QoS.
----
Timer resolution, it is also changed in windows 8, with more interval, and you can read some affect to gaming in the Guru3d topics.
bcdedit /set disabledynamictick yes
But it also can be saving power for laptop, and the most important one, tablet.

Intel also start using it(with core parking also) to let the processor going into deeper C-states with more time.
So it is a big thing, just see that after the browser start using it with 4ms(6ms by default when the Timer resolution is not set as 1ms), the performance increase.

For NTP also, I think they are happy when GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime() is added to windows 8 too.
----
By reading their test, the core parking is affecting the gaming performance.
But they need more test with Fraps, the rendering time for every frames :)

BTW, I think it also affect the DPC delay too, as it can process more faster by jumping into another core to process ASAP.
Just need to know that core parking is affect when gaming?(single task) or gaming+browsing+music+downloading etc(multitask)

And overhead for the Core Parking? So the data need to wait more time after the kernel process which core is need to park and allocation of the threads? :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 23, 2012, 02:05:45 AM
Yes, core parking benchmarks have been surprising and show fairly clearly that is tuned too aggressive for most hard core users. This may be because the average Joe is so different from a hard core PC user (e.g. a gamer). That is why I recommend disabling it in your highest performance power profile, then switching power profiles as desired. As ParkControl and Process Lasso allow.

You could hack a mouse or keyboard drive scan frequency I suppose, though I've never heard of a need to do so before now. I don't know that the optical processor in most mice scans at more than once every 10ms or not, so whether the mouse can keep up with the changed frequency is a matter of debate. If it can, then one would think it would ship with drivers that would set the appropriate frequency. If it can't, then increasing the frequency could create artifacts (defects) in its message stream because it has not yet processed the most recent signal. Though that is all completely on a limb, as is the premise that a mouse need be hacked to perform better ;p. They do sell special gaming mice for big bucks, but whether they are really better, you tell me I suppose... ;). I wouldn't know, I go with traditional mice, and - yes - I do keep them inches from the receiver due to the WiFi interference problem. Why this is not a hot topic I have no idea, but there is some serious interference going on, as I said. It isn't obvious unless you saturate the bandwidth of an 802.11g channel, with a file copy or something. That is all it takes to make a wireless mouse less than responsive. I wonder how many people think it is their PC, when it is really their mouse that is acting jerky. You can always test by hitting the Windows key. If the Start Menu (or Metro in Windows 8 ) appears, then it is your mouse!
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 23, 2012, 03:13:57 AM
So did the Core Parking become worse in Windows 8?
It need to tested with "bcdedit /set disabledynamictick yes" to prevent the Timer Resolution affect the result.
And other thing that we don't know.
Maybe the best way is asking the Microsoft, but no answers come out.
BTW, did you can create a software to monitor the working of Core Parking like watching the usage of pre-core?
----
Yup, Science is a serious business ;D
To fix the WiFi problem, you need to learn more about Science first. ;)
And then fix it by using the technology(software ways), like the b/g/n to getting more faster and prevent other device to affect whole the WiFi network speed.

This is not a hot topic because they are not buying it, at here, only 1/100 person that using it.
And maybe a wireless gaming mouse don't facing this problem. fixed by wireless gaming mouse with technology(software ways) maybe?
Who know? :)
----
I am buying the gaming mouse just for the ergonomic design, as I holding the mouse everyday with a big hand.
And I am buying a wrong mouse for a middle size hand... :P
But it is fine for me, as my holding ways is not putting all my hand on it.(just using the fingers)
----
Maybe after they force the os use HPET only and fixed by prevent the 8ms(125hz) is jumping between 6-10ms but like 7-9ms?(and the time to sync TSC+HPET?)
And it is cause by the optical processor of the mouse can't follow the jumping, so the data is delay and it need next 6-10ms to send(8ms+8ms=16ms)?
Who know? ;D
Need to test with many software(like the software that test mouse accelerate) and hardware(mouse only?), and First is to learning how a mouse working ;)
Google! Help ME!!!%>_<%
PS:Benchmarks is a serious business also ;D
PS2:New user name for you :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 23, 2012, 07:36:20 AM
I am working on new code so don't have the time to go through everything, but you are right that software and hardware environments are complex enough to the point that minor, seemingly insignificant or unsubstantial, tweaks could conceivably make a difference for some minority of people.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 23, 2012, 08:16:11 AM
Quote
Yes, core parking benchmarks have been surprising and show fairly clearly that is tuned too aggressive for most hard core users. This may be because the average Joe is so different from a hard core PC user (e.g. a gamer). That is why I recommend disabling it in your highest performance power profile, then switching power profiles as desired. As ParkControl and Process Lasso allow.

Not for me it seems...
 :'( :'( :'(

Quote
Wait a second, I am eating myself?

Not exactly, & as King I think you will be allowed to eat your subjects. :P
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 23, 2012, 09:28:52 AM
Not for me it seems...
 :'( :'( :'(

The benchmark must be one that has a staggered load, something I meant to add to ThreadRacer, and will be doing so soon. A standard 'how fast will it go' benchmark will just unpark them and they all go 100%. That's not a true measure of the effects of the parking and unparking time. Of course, it is true that for some users there won't be a difference regardless, depending on their user behaviors and installed software.

Also, not all modern PCs support core parking to start with, so that is another factor to consider (and ParkControl won't tell you at present).
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 23, 2012, 12:40:16 PM
Ya, we lack of the software to test Core Parking, only some game and WinRaR can prove about disable it. :)
----
Quote
eat your subjects.
And I always eat my subjects(topic). ;D
----
Was not bertie97 means that, the Core Parking in the os that install at SSD is fail to read the value by ParkControl?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 23, 2012, 05:47:18 PM
Was not bertie97 means that, the Core Parking in the os that install at SSD is fail to read the value by ParkControl?

What? I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

What outstanding issues are there with ParkControl? Can anyone give me a summary? With so much fixed, etc.. I am not sure where we're at for *certain* so want to be certain. Yes, the Bugtracker will help when I expose it to the public again.

P.S. I don't even know what to do with half this thread as far as categorization goes ;p.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 23, 2012, 09:21:09 PM
Ok
@ BYH - look again.  Parkcontrol is recorded above.

The point of the posts -
https://bitsum.com/forum/index.php/topic,1702.msg8883.html#msg8883 (https://bitsum.com/forum/index.php/topic,1702.msg8883.html#msg8883)

I'm looking for an anomaly which would explain why the CP dialogs apparently no longer allow me to assign individual settings per power profile.  [They do not update/hold updated settings when 'apply' is hit]
I guess I could record the screen activity as a movie file to prove I'm not just making this up.

I'd imagined recording my reg activity might reveal something.  The fact it doesn't appear to suggest the problem lies elsewhere.
bertie97 is facing that, the PakrControl is not reading the setting that he set.
For example, bertie97 wanna to set "Balance" to 50% Core Parking, but after he press the Apply button.
The setting it wanna to apply is disappear, but it works.
In my case the OS is 7x64 & PL park control works fine on my old install.
Resmon doesn't show me the info I want as far as I can see - ie the OS setting - I am assuming the reg entry above shows that the scheme is possible & active.  Resmon & perfmon only give me the readout that it has come into effect I think.
powercfg/q gives
Quote
Power Setting GUID: bc5038f7-23e0-4960-96da-33abaf5935ec  (Maximum processor
 state)
      Minimum Possible Setting: 0x00000000
      Maximum Possible Setting: 0x00000064
      Possible Settings increment: 0x00000001
      Possible Settings units: %
    Current AC Power Setting Index: 0x00000064
    Current DC Power Setting Index: 0x00000064
Again I assume this is the correct state as ...0064 is full control is it not?

At this point I am more interested in hunting down why it's not behaving as before...
Not life or death, just something I want to tear apart.  :P
And by reopen the ParkControl, reinstall PL, it is still showing the same. :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 23, 2012, 10:42:54 PM
CPU Parking sounds disabled system-wide somehow, when it wasn't before. I don't see how this is possible with ParkControl, as it doesn't disable the entire mechanism, just adjusts its parameters to effectively disable or enable it. If you've many any manual registry edits, those should be reverted, and is why I recommend against such. I don't know ... I will have to think about it more. Also, FWIW, although I break this rule myself often, the most concise summary is the most useful to me. Also check BIOS settings. What else changed here?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 23, 2012, 11:38:52 PM
So, what else can affect the ParkControl to read the setting and showing it wrongly?
Did after apply the setting will reread the setting? :)

And what updates for windows is affect the powercfg?

That only I can think to find the cause. :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 24, 2012, 03:52:50 AM
It reads the setting from the registry, but makes changes to the settings using powercfg. That is the cause of the disparity and why parking appears active in ParkControl. It of course refreshes the settings. I'll have to more tightly couple it with the power subsystems to handle these situations.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 24, 2012, 04:17:22 AM
By using something like powercfg/q ? :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 24, 2012, 04:33:35 AM
No. Using powercfg at all was just a quick hack.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 24, 2012, 05:09:39 AM
Hope you will find the solution  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 27, 2012, 08:44:38 AM
Attach video of events in PL dialog when trying to set CP. 
This must have the .jpg removed. It is an .avi. <2.9mb
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 28, 2012, 06:59:02 AM
Did you try create a new power plan profile and change it?
Maybe there are something wrong at the registry.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on October 28, 2012, 07:41:01 AM
I am looking for reasons why the registry would be off-limits to PL.  It has elevated rights.
The power schemes will modify via Win. 
I have just found that the reset 'do not show again' dialogs switch doesn't work either so I think it is something related to the registry.
This isn't an ini setting is it(?) so I looked at AV exclusions again.  I am still using CIS (Comodo) & the entire PL folder is in exclusions in both AV & Def+, & has FW access so I would think it wasn't that.
I was using CIS on the HDD install & didn't need the PL processes in exclusions.  Different SATA header & driver on SSD now but I wouldn't expect that to be the reason  ???



Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on October 28, 2012, 05:30:11 PM
Even if ParkControl was running at low rights, it has read access to the applicable registry keys. It launches powercfg.exe with elevated rights regardless, which makes the actual change. The reason powercfg.exe fails to make the change has something to do with the system configuration. Like I said, I will work on showing more precisely what is going on, including any errors. In the future I won't use powercfg.exe and will have more access to the error status.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on October 29, 2012, 01:49:59 PM
Just want to let you know, I just try it on the Chinese version of windows 7(for testing core-parking).
After I create a new power plans, apply the new setting, it does not showing the current setting.
But it is fine for the default power plans.
----
About the HT, Good News, it is not affect the gaming performance.
Maybe they has disable the HT in bios, and cause the Core Parking parking less.

BTW, did Core Parking work at least 50% core are parked?
Because I was tested with 0%, but it is still showing 50% core parked.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on November 13, 2012, 10:51:21 AM
I found that, the Asus default powerplan "Power4Gear High Performance" has core-parking disable after I install PL and check for it.
Did the PL change it, or the Asus found the core-parking and disable it?
I think is Asus disable it, as before I install PL, the "Resource Monitor" is not showing the parking state.
They found it, or Microsoft tell them, or other software change it?
And they change the AC only, not with Battery also.
Interesting. :D

The windows 8 has changed the working way of Core-Parking, it disable the Core, not disable the Fake-Core like windows 7.
But I don't know how it work when facing AMD Bulldozer, and Intel 4 real-core or 4 real, 4 fake-core. :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on November 13, 2012, 08:18:47 PM
Probably ASUS did this, as they are notorious for such tweaks. I have used lots of ASUS software, using more than one ASUS motherboard (am right now even). I strongly advise staying far away from their optimization utilities, and especially their 'automated' overclocking. I mean, thinking about it for a minute and common sense will tell you any automated overclocking is inherently not safe. It is operating outside the bounds of the system. While your PC may be fine 99% of the time, it could have a catastrophic crash during a high load one day and cause data loss. All for a - usually very marginal - gain in performance.

So far two memory leaks have been identified in their software as well. One I blogged about and another a friend blogged about. Whether these are fixed, I dunno. Since these are 'resident' (always running) applications, a memory leak of even the smallest size is a big deal.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on November 14, 2012, 05:19:56 AM
Can you provide the blog post link or the name of the software?
So I can avoid the "lack".

And yes, they just set the "Minimum processor state" to 100%, and they just using the setting form the default powerplan "High Performance"
I wonder how they can get the EnergyStar for this laptop...
(and other problem too, I better create/use a new powerplan...)

The EPU(energysave) and Automatic overclock is also having many problem, they just lower the Bclk or FSB, lower the PCI-E version and other such like this.
But I haven found the "optimization utilities" that you say.

And their BIOS too, the setting will changed to default(not Optimize setting) and cause the temp limit is too low, so I need to click the reset the default setting(reset to Optimize setting) every boot, as that is not my computer, I can't just change the default setting of the BIOS and flash it.
----
And windows 8 is start parking the whole core(core 2, 3), while only using the core 0 and the fake-core(core 1) .
Nice way to saving the power, and using the TurboBoost too  :D
----
And ya, there are some HPET broken on the motherboards(maybe?)
Quote
Fixed GPU-Z not starting or crashing the machine on systems with broken HPET implementation
----
And I just found one strange thing, the Firefox(Nightly) GC&iGC is reduced(GC:From 19xms to 9xms iGC:From 6xms to 4xms) while I moved to windows 8 with i5-3210M and 2 1600 MHz 11-11-11-29 1T ram.
The GC time is affect by the Ram or the OS(windows 8 )?
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on November 14, 2012, 06:31:45 AM
They were social media posts actually, and I limited the audience, the processes with known memory leaks are (or were last I looked):

atkexComSvc.exe  (seen using 1GB+, but grows indefinitely)
and
AI Suite II.exe  (seen using over 160MB+, but grows indefinitely)

Whether or not they have been fixed, who knows. Here's a different subject, again criticizing ASUS utilities for taking TurboBoost and ramping it up to unsafe levels ala Turbo Unlocker: http://thepileof.blogspot.com/2011/11/asus-turbo-unlocker-may-not-be-100.html
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on November 14, 2012, 07:59:09 AM
That is interesting info , I don't use there utilities  ,at least not there big suite of apps they do now with AI . I have used asus probe in past with decent results (there many free app out now do same thing ) .

On the turbo boost on AMD, Never had AMD processors but FWIW the latest P8Z77 Bios for intel is set so if you set your ram timings to XMP setting (all other clocks are set default) the bios will automatic by default run highest turbo boost available in ever core even thought you didn't mess with turbo multipliers . You have to disable now "asus multi threading optimization" setting .
I don't use any of the power options in the bios but I don't have any issue with bios not saving right settings, at least so far (3 months) .

Here the thing that changed with turbo boost . Intel only controls the base clock , all the turbo boost amount is on MB manufactures and how they set it . Many do same thing especially if its marketed at power user/OC'er .

And as many have said that auto auto clocker is not the best. how can it be its doing the testing, optimizing in few mins . It tends to raise vcore way higher than is needed , especially in IB which are sensitive to vcore raising and run best with lowest voltage per OC (meaning don't try for sky IMO ).

Now its not bad as a tool, use it to get baseline then tweek voltages manually and maybe raise/lower clocks to get best stability . It does tend to be faster when used with there windows based OC app as your getting real-time results . No need for constant reboots to bios for settings .
All said an done I still tend to do all in bios, IMO that were all should be set at end of day , I don't think its good idea to have windows do it, cause if you have say, CPU OC profiles, VGA OC profiles and fan profiles that need to be loaded at login, what happens if say all the OC get loaded properly and fan ones didn't for some reason. overheated CPU/VGA/system . I try and limit that kind of app in windows .

Ah, looks like I went OT and long winded again  :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on November 14, 2012, 12:46:48 PM
I always OT  ;D
And ya, just Google "atkexComSvc.exe" 2. 21 Sep 2012 Memory lack... :o
Lucky I don't using the software that you mentioned, as this is a laptop. :)

And I did not trust the Motherboard "auto" function too much, except half-auto fan control.  :P
----
The fan one, I use the SpeedFan before, and because that computer's Fan is broken, so I can hear the sound without worry it will loss control. ;D
----
I just using the powercfg to delete the Power4Gear High Performance(now Power4Gear has 2 profile only, High Performance(default) and Power Save, with a not good enough cooler)and copy a balance profile with the same GUID, so the software did not found it is changed/missing and create a new one, and I still can change PowerPlan by using the software/FN key. ;)

I think Asus should start fire the useless software developer, they are now trying to destroy the whole thing.
Nope, is their boss first, for hire the useless software developer without community with the hardware department. :P
And I did not trust the EnergyStar now...
----
So, back to topics, Windows 8 is changing the core-parking for more power-save when using low-load software, with the forced enable DWM support hardware-accelerate, and a dynamic tick(Timer Resolution), with a 1006us when the software need 1000us.
Maybe getting less performance for low-load software as it is parking the whole core(2 threads on 1 core) for 2 core, 4 threads.
But getting more deeper sleep-state for the core, and maybe some use of the TurboBoost for first core.

That all I get now, but the network has difference profile(maybe difference profile for difference OS type)in windows 8, I will get more information tomorrow.

Hope you all has a nice day ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 09, 2012, 12:47:22 PM
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4893866
The answer is cache-misses,frequency and sleeping state?

It also has some explanation about why the OS is moving the threads, and ya, there are some game is setting the main thread on core 0 only.
The main thread on core 0 also causing other software that using 20% cpu usage is eatting the performance of the game. :P
And I wonder locking the thread on each core is right or not, as they need data from other thread too. :)
----
I also testing one game by locking it on core 0, and force-parking the second core(core 2,3), to see that the TurboBoost can help increase the performance of single thread or not.
Bad, the performance is reducing, the real answer is just disable the core-parking, decrease the waiting time for all threads, not enable the core-parking to let the TurboBoost increase the frequency a little only, and delay the threads to process. :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 10, 2012, 06:03:54 PM
Wow!  :o
15-30Fps increase after disable core-parking for a cpu bound(not enough optimization) Planet Side 2.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/13tpv6/unpark_your_cpu_for_more_performance/
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on December 11, 2012, 02:01:07 AM
Wow! Based on yours and other user reports, it seems that core parking has a huge impact on gaming. My own tests have always told me that, by default, core parking is way too aggressive. It isn't supposed to significantly slow your PC like it does. Apparently someone didn't benchmark the default settings for core parking :o.

ParkControl got a lot of publicity recently in the gaming circles, though that has died down a bit.

I also agree with you on ASUS's OEM software, it is awful. Their power management profiles are terrible too! I always start with a clean slate for ASUS devices, and all others for that matter. Default Windows install is the best way to go by far.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on December 11, 2012, 07:34:57 AM
when you say asus power management profiles are you talking windows based as a new specific power profile setup up in control panel>power options ?

I ask cause they also have power saving profiles in bios on newer MB, these try to lower CPU/MB package wattage usage , I never tried them but from what I understand it lowers the clock rate and some voltages to get wattage way down (they have 35 and 45w profiles for IB CPU in the P8Z77 MB series
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 11, 2012, 11:38:49 AM
Quote
when you say asus power management profiles are you talking windows based as a new specific power profile setup up in control panel>power options ?
Yup, not that EPU.
Laptop has a FN shortcut key to change the Asus custom power profile quickly, but now they changing it into show program instead of changing to next custom power profile.
And the software always changing the minimum processor state to 100%, after you pull out the AC supply and use battery.
I only left 2-3 Asus laptop must use software(like FN key, Aicharger+, touchpad etc), as the other software must having other bug that I don't know.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on December 11, 2012, 01:38:01 PM
Yup, not that EPU.
Laptop has a FN shortcut key to change the Asus custom power profile quickly, but now they changing it into show program instead of changing to next custom power profile.
And the software always changing the minimum processor state to 100%, after you pull out the AC supply and use battery.
I only left 2-3 Asus laptop must use software(like FN key, Aicharger+, touchpad etc), as the other software must having other bug that I don't know.
Ok, I was not aware they had these option . I have heard there AI suite II (mainly TurboV EVO) is more stable than past versions . I don't know if this only with latest MB but that is what i read a lot . (talking about crashing and working right, not memory leaks or anything else) .
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on December 11, 2012, 03:59:27 PM
when you say asus power management profiles are you talking windows based as a new specific power profile setup up in control panel>power options ?

I ask cause they also have power saving profiles in bios on newer MB, these try to lower CPU/MB package wattage usage , I never tried them but from what I understand it lowers the clock rate and some voltages to get wattage way down (they have 35 and 45w profiles for IB CPU in the P8Z77 MB series

Yes, any power profile not named (for English PCs) Power Saver, Balanced, and High Performance are created by the OEM, user, or third-party software. They are almost always entirely useless. All the options are available for every power profile, so if you desire different behavior, the default power profiles should be tweaked - as opposed to creating 10 different power profiles to confuse everyone ;p.

BIOS power profiles are a different beast, and mostly marketing hogwash ;p. Just a bunch of pre-configured settings. I'd stay away from them, though compared to things like ASUS'S instant overclocking via button or toggle switch on the motherboard, they are probably remotely safe.

When it comes to lowering energy use, modern CPUs do pretty well at this. As their clock rate is decreased, so is the voltage. The minimum clock rate, by %, can of course be set in the power profile options, and defaults to very aggressive power saving.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on December 11, 2012, 04:11:31 PM
yes, thats what I did just modify the stock profile and export that as a profile .

I don't use any of the EPU or TUP stuff . I do make sure CPU goes to idle fine and voltage drops as it should . According to many monitors apps it only uses less than 10W at idle, low speed so can't get much better IMO there .
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 11, 2012, 07:48:10 PM
Quote
yes, thats what I did just modify the stock profile and export that as a profile .
I just use the stock profile, as they has keep the default setting, and can be reset.
And export the powersave profile as "download", with 5% maximum processor state and force enabled core-parking.
So it only using 1 core, 2 threads(windows 8 only, windows vista/7 is 2 core, 2 threads), and it is only <8 watt for the CPU when download, or wanna battery life last longer. ;)

Quote
I don't use any of the EPU or TUP stuff . I do make sure CPU goes to idle fine and voltage drops as it should . According to many monitors apps it only uses less than 10W at idle, low speed so can't get much better IMO there .
Yup, it is better that, when the apps wanna process something in a short time, the processor can using their TurboBoost technology, temporary overclock the processor to reduce the time need to process/wake time, so their processor can fell into sleep state longer.

And that why core-parking is created, to increase the sleep state while let the processor temporary overclock their core, to finish the jobs with 1 core.
But it is too conserve for some apps that are not optimize, or need to waiting the other process/network/HDD to read the data.

PlanetSide 2 is a good example ;D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on December 11, 2012, 08:13:53 PM
I suppose I should mention, as I have before, that frequency scaling has its own performance penalty :o. You always pay for any energy savings. That's why in my High Performance power profile I disallow frequency down-scaling (downwards). Then I use Process Lasso's Energy Saver to keep me in High Performance when I'm using the PC, or running select apps. When I walk away, Balanced kicks in and allows for energy savings.

Frequency scaling causes a performance impact simply because there is a non-zero scale-up time when confronted with high loads. Since most CPU activity occurs in brief spurts, the spurt is often over before the core(s) have time to scale up.

TurboBoost/TurboCore technologies I do use, though they make me a bit uncomfortable. It seems unnatural. I suppose I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of a CPU that can only run at its maximum specified frequency for a few of its cores at any time.

Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 11, 2012, 08:24:25 PM
Ya, and it can increase the sleep time of processors too.
----
TurboBoost/TurboCore technologies
Ya, as different volt for different processor is know by everyone who playing with overclock.
So it means different volt for different core too :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on December 13, 2012, 02:46:24 AM
I actually just disabled TurboCore on my primary system. My CPU (8150) has been running hot, to the point I believe it scales itself down. I tried a few things, and think this will help most. We'll see.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 13, 2012, 07:12:38 AM
Every CPU that start using the TurboBoost/TurboCore is too hot for laptop.
And I should blame Asus for the fanspeed, the CPU overheat to 99°(and over that as it can't showing over 99°) and the fanspeed just going to 4700rpm slowly...
after the Temp reduce to 90°, the fanspeed decrease to 3400rpm. :o

I am thinking that, I should start using a mod BIOS for the setting of speedfan or not, as the temp when playing game can be reduce to 80-85° if the speedfan is using 4000-5000rpm.
PS:Asus always has a bad BIOS setting, and it changing back itself to default when using a better setting(optimize setting)for some laptop
PS2:While playing PlanetSide 2(PS2 ;D), I stand on a place that jumping showing as CPU/GPU is the bad FPS problem for the game, after set the frequently to 100%, it only showing as GPU.  ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on December 16, 2012, 06:13:57 PM
I always set ASUS fan speeds to 'Turbo' because by default ASUS wants to show off how quiet they can be. Problem is, the fan is there for a reason ;p. They literally let the CPU come to within a few degrees of overheating before they kick in, lol.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 16, 2012, 06:30:04 PM
Ya, maybe they think the CPU will stop processing heavy jobs or throttling first. ;D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on December 16, 2012, 07:00:40 PM
I always set ASUS fan speeds to 'Turbo' because by default ASUS wants to show off how quiet they can be. Problem is, the fan is there for a reason ;p. They literally let the CPU come to within a few degrees of overheating before they kick in, lol.
I do the same for the case fans as you don't seem to have much control as cpu fan , here you can set many temp trigger points to change the rpm slope .
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 16, 2012, 09:16:46 PM
Quote
Edit2:

Holy **** this may be a placebo, but my mouse movement feels ridiculously improved simply by doing this... Overall system responsiveness on my i5-3570k and even my laptop, which is a Core2 T8300 is massively increased.

Looking at my voltage for my processor, it still goes into C-States and reduces clock frequency. Looking at power consumption, it hasn't changed like at all in Argus Monitor.

Dude, wtf.
http://techreport.com/discussion/24051/geforce-versus-radeon-captured-on-high-speed-video?post=695143#695143
Quote
It says it may increase power consumption, but C-States still work for me. Frequency still goes down, voltage still goes down when it's not under load, and looking at power consumption in Argus Monitor it hasn't increased. However, system fluditiy and responsiveness is off the charts now. I would estimate it increased by maybe 400%. The easiest thing to notice is mouse responsiveness.
http://techreport.com/discussion/24051/geforce-versus-radeon-captured-on-high-speed-video?post=695151

And ya, I see for a lot of thing that will affect the responsiveness of games.
So the gamer are trying to get more information about responsiveness.
And disable core-parking don't increase the power consumption too.
Maybe it is just like, working more first, then sleep longer. ;D

PS:So the best way to testing core-parking is mouse responsiveness. ;D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on December 16, 2012, 09:27:17 PM
Also note if you have a wireless mouse the best kept secret is that WiFi traffic can and will interfere with it. I wrote about it ages ago: http://thepileof.blogspot.com/2012/01/wireless-router-interference-with.html . Why nobody mentions this, who knows. I do know I've verified it to happen with wireless mice I've owned.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 16, 2012, 09:58:58 PM
Because we are not living in China with 100Mbps and a price for 1xxRMB/year !!!
Except the one who having 2 laptop+WiFi router with b/g/n support and transfer data between 2 of them everyday.
Then he will found the speed is cap at half of 150/300Mbps as they are fighting for it. ;D

And many company is using desktop rather than laptop :)
----
And about WiFi, the DPC delay also affect the gaming a little, but not much that you can aware of it.
Some people also facing PS/2/USB keyboard, mouse that causing stutter of the game too. ;)

PS:The WiFi(hardware) is too complex for a lot of people, they can't understand why a smartphone download at >1Mbps can affect whole WiFi network to 1k ms...
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on December 16, 2012, 10:15:19 PM
Would you kill me if I said my home internet is 100Mbps downstream in the RURAL USA? ;p .. Happen to have the fastest cable provider in the nation, though they suck at everything else.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 17, 2012, 07:32:30 AM
No, I will kill the Biggest ISP in Malaysia "TM" first. ;D
I can see any ads about fiber internet in the TV now, but don't see the services at here. :P
----
Bufferbloat?
I always facing this problem when connect to Planet Side 2 servers, because of the large delay between 2 hop and no packet loss.
----
The WiFi mouse/keyboard, except they start using some technology that has been using on the WiFi high end earphone to reduce interference.
This problem will still continue happen. :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on December 17, 2012, 08:15:12 AM
Would you kill me if I said my home internet is 100Mbps downstream in the RURAL USA? ;p .. Happen to have the fastest cable provider in the nation, though they suck at everything else.
Tht's pretty fast , what service is that and I assume its not basic .

here in NY LI we have optimum online which has better bandwidth than most area's but I just checked today and is 18.72Mbps for download and upload is 1.88Mbps . the DL seems from memory to be not great as I remember .
Edit: checked what others in my location and it says 27Mbps so seems it down at bit now, maybe storm has something to do as I know there swamped with repairs .
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 17, 2012, 08:23:40 AM
Quote
but I just checked today and is 18.72Mbps and upload is 1.88Mbps
And the delay is?
As you know, the delay is more important for browsing and gaming, and I will choose a low delay and at least 10Mbps service.
Because a low delay can decrease the required RWIM for full speed, and having a faster TCP slow start. ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on December 17, 2012, 09:10:50 AM
if you mean ping, it was 5-7 ms , but that was off server test in my area .

but that depends on where I link/connect to , ping is generally low here .
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 17, 2012, 09:22:43 AM
Ya, 6 ms±1 is very low, but if the Internet is sharing with a P2P downloader user, it must be become very high, as the streams is full of p2p data.  :P
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on December 17, 2012, 09:51:16 AM
I can say from playing older game (ones that show pings to servers) I have no trouble with below 100ms at least in US .

The few newer games I just got don't seem to list pings, which I don't know why they don't .
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 17, 2012, 09:56:44 AM
For example, Planet Side 2, it is not showing the pings/delays.
But I has a 250±50ms for it, it works great until 500+ people in a zone, and it start lag as the download speed(50kb/s) has been cap/get by the p2p downloader user. :P
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on December 17, 2012, 02:38:44 PM
Indeed, ping time is bigger than bandwidth these days since everyone (mostly) has the bandwidth. Here is how bitsum.com does: http://just-ping.com/index.php?vh=108.166.71.202&s=ping .

Which is pretty good - it took a long time to find a decent hosting company for a (now cloud) based pseudo-dedicated server. (dedicated IP in a VM)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: edkiefer on December 17, 2012, 03:29:03 PM
that link shows 40ms to NY , Austin Tx is real low 7
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on December 17, 2012, 03:32:01 PM
Yea, it is hosted in Texas. Still, considering that light only travels so fast, it is hard to beat most of those ping times given its location. Of course, that is what CDNs are for if you gotta do better. Anyway, I gotta give RackSpace the credit ;). My previous hosts were TERRIBLE by comparison. The Cloud also enables a lot of cool features.

EDIT: LOL, I am switching topics a 3rd time in this thread ;p.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 17, 2012, 03:59:07 PM
Beijing, China:    Packets lost (10%)    1,022.3    2,343.3    3,196.5
CDN always not good for China. ;D
The China ISP always bring their user to CDNs US servers LOL. :P
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Jeremy Collake on December 17, 2012, 04:07:34 PM
I expect one day China will loosen up, as it did with capitalism. At least you have an optimistic future.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 17, 2012, 06:19:35 PM
But before that, they need to having a good parents first.
You know why it has to. :)
After the problem is solve, then a Open Internet.
You can't give them a item without a safelock, and make sure that they know how to using it, with the correct way.
(I know the "correct/wrong" is difference for difference person)
Except he/she is a smart person(or genius), and know how to using it correctly.
But most of them are not. :P

And this is why the advanced tools in PL is always has a "Stop now if you don't know what are you doing" :D
(But I think they will just ignore it and clicking on "Yes")
----
Quote
At least you have an optimistic future.
We always can't know the future, except you are trying to "Back To Future" ;D
And I don't has an optimistic future, but we/I can try to create it. :)
----
Back to topic, I think there still have many thing like core-parking are getting ignore and they just saying "snake-oil, placebo, impossible".
Just like many people think, a faster Internet like 100 Mbps will defeat the 10 Mbps in online game.
I has seen before, many people having lag on online game, they will provide the speed not the latency first.
But as you know, the latency is the key, and the packet loss is the key too.
When I get 20 ms to 8.8.8.8(Google Dns), but I got 200 ms for the online game!!!
Same country, difference latency, difference ISP for the router/hops(it is Google ISP hosting the hops for Google Dns)
PS:The Internet thing is too complex, so I will stop typing it now. ;D

I will try playing with powerplans hidden setting more, as it might has something that has a affect like core-parking. :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 21, 2012, 02:43:21 PM
About why building/support the CDN on China is so hard.
http://www.pingwest.com/why-public-cloud-is-so-difficult-to-build-in-china/

PS:It is in Chinese, if you wanna know part of them more accurate in English, I can try translate that part. :)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: bertie97 on December 22, 2012, 02:16:58 PM
I see that whilst attempting to learn dry wall skills my CPU parking thread has gone even more wildly off-topic than ever.
(BYH, the red herring king, has something to do with it I suspect...)  :P
I have had issues with my SSD - may not be the fault of the SSD but I will be spending a few days tearing the PC apart/rebuilding/tearing apart/jumping up & down on parts/swearing/etc

I have thus dropped back to my HDD & done a couple of PL updates.
I find that suddenly the ability to edit the powersaver parking dialog no longer saves any setting.  The other 2 seem to be changing/updating as they should be.
I cannot enable CPU parking in the Powersaver option.
I am finding that on update PL dropped the default power profile to PS, which compared to my normal HP is a bit of a shock!  :o

Liking the dialog changes BTW.  Things looking quite nicely streamlined.
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 23, 2012, 04:13:30 AM
Ya, so the normal user can understand what is that functions. ;)
----
Quote
I see that whilst attempting to learn dry wall skills my CPU parking thread has gone even more wildly off-topic than ever.
(BYH, the red herring king, has something to do with it I suspect...)  :P
Yup. ;D
----
And there are some problem for the ParkControl, it can't control some powerplans profile and I don't know why.
----
Quote
I find that suddenly the ability to edit the powersaver parking dialog no longer saves any setting.  The other 2 seem to be changing/updating as they should be.
I cannot enable CPU parking in the Powersaver option.
If you changing it on the powerplans options, can it works?
If it can, just changing it on there, as it is the default tools on windows. ;D
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: chris635 on December 29, 2012, 07:37:04 PM
Hi guys,

   I've noticed after several reboots my core parking is re-nabled. I don't know if it is supposed to do this. I haven't checked after every reboot. I just noticed it a little while ago. Is the core un-parking feature in process lasso supposed to do this? I'm using an AMD FX 6100 6 core processor.


Chris
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 30, 2012, 01:04:27 AM
Nope, it is still remain disable, you can check the Event Viewer to find out which program changing it after you set it.
The Event ID is 12. ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: chris635 on December 30, 2012, 10:43:40 AM
Not sure what I did but it is holding now.



Chris
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on December 30, 2012, 11:51:00 AM
Great to hear that :)
And wish you has a Happy New Year. ;)
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on January 11, 2013, 03:59:04 PM
Code: [Select]
Time to update.
Every player with PlanetSide 2 know it is CPU bound game, when fighting at least 100+ people.
So I wanna test some change that can reduce the CPU time for it to rendering.
Most the tweak that I can get higher FPS is
UseFloat32Output=1
This guy fixed the sound problem, so you can set the MaxVoices=192 without any reduce of FPS, and get the most quality of sound.
But be careful, the reason that PS2 devs disable it is because they found some sound problem for some sound card.
ShadowQuality=0
RenderFlora=Off
Ya, this two are tested by most people, and all of them can get higher FPS, maybe the sun is causing the problem.
----
So I get like 20-30 Fps in 500+ fight, but it will lag(drop to 5-10 FPS) when I turning the mouse, so I think it might be the timer problem.
And I force windows to using HPET as the only timer, and yes this fixed the problem.
But it causing another problem, the GC time of the Firefox(Nightly) is increased.
Without forcing HPET, I can get <100ms at the <7xxM and 150ms~ at the >8xxM memory usage.
With forcing HPET, I only can get >100ms at <5xxM and >200ms at 7xxM memory usage.
And so did iGC, it increase from <15ms to <50ms.

So if you are browsing website when the iGC is happening, you will found the lag more easy.
----
And I also testing that, if I force the timer resolution to 0.5ms, what will happen.
Nope, It don't affect anything, PS2 or Firefox but...
In another game.
That game is 2.5D, and the game engine is working in 30 or 60FPS.
When the timer resolution is 1ms, I get 61-62 FPS without vsync.
When the timer resolution is 0.5ms, I get 60 FPS and sometimes 61 FPS without vsync.
I don't know it is a "good" thing for it or not, but it sound like the timer is more accurate for the game.
Maybe it prevent the game engine to speed up 1-2 FPS(1.67-3.33ms). ;D
----Increasing the information
Yes, I also disable the core-parking, which is more issues for a high-end i7 as they has more core/frequency, and will be seeing more 10-15 FPS without the setting about.
And changing the powerplans to forcing the max frequency will increase 1-5 FPS and might be less for a big fight.

About the multi-threads, yes, PS2 is using 4 core, but maybe the sound is using 3 of them.
One times I saw 4 core CPU usage is as high as 90% in a building that having at least 100+, with many of them is spamming the "Q" button. ;D
And about why they are having low CPU usage when in a big battle, it has been say in their forum.
Draw calls.
This is a good example for the reducing the draw calls.
http://answers.unity3d.com/questions/14578/whats-the-best-way-to-reduce-draw-calls.html
And that also explain why I found this.
[quote]TerrainQuality=5
ModelQuality=5[/quote]
It increase the model quality for far object, but it also means there are showing the same material & texture, which means reduced draw calls.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3029182

But I think the Biggest problem is the light, which why I say sun.
[quote]Draw calls aren't related to materials, but shaders and light sources and other factors (forward rendering vs. diffuse, pixel lighting vs. vertex lighting, etc.). Forward rendering with the default diffuse shader requires a draw call for the object and another one for each pixel light, although it depends on the version of Unity...Unity 3.3 seems to have only one draw call in this case, with an additional call for each pixel light.[/quote]
http://answers.unity3d.com/questions/57506/2-draw-calls-per-mesh.html
So that why after we disable the shadow and get a big increase of performance, but it is still not good.
The draw calls is still higher in that game, as it is showing at least 50-100 people in front of you.

And far enough, I will stop at here and waiting their 30/1/2012 patch came out and see the FPS will be increase or not.
Because it is a MMOFPS, we need at least 60FPS for it. :)
----
TSC has a lower access time than HPET which pass through the data bus.
And the reason that using HPET when gaming is better, I think it is because the processor is processing the game data, so the TSC might be can't sync?
[quote]The time stamp counter in newer processors may support an enhancement, referred to as invariant TSC. Processors support for invariant TSC is indicated by CPUID.80000007H:EDX[8]. The invariant TSC will run at a constant rate in all ACPI P-, C-. and T-states. This is the architectural behavior moving forward.[/quote]
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10921210/cpu-tsc-fetch-operation-especially-in-multicore-multi-processor-environment

You can asking more if you want, but I am just a person that collecting data.   ;)
Updated time:2013-1-15 3:14:08
I completely reset everything I know about it...
So I try not forcing the HPET again, changing every setting in the ini of PlanetSide 2, now it is complete 30-40fps in 500+ fight.
But it still need reopen to recover it after a few hours, as it will drop to 20 fps.
----
As I say before, it is draw calls and batch too many, as you need rendering 500+ people and the building.
The information can be getting from SOE forum-Quick Note on Optimization
By setting
UseFloat32Output=1
SampleRate=44100
Will complete reduce the block of sound on CPU, and I can see the same FPS by using MaxVoices=192.
GraphicsQuality=2
RenderDistance=1250.000000
ShadowQuality=0
UseLod0a=0
GpuPhysics=0
ParticleLOD=1
ParticleDistanceScale=0.450000
And keep other quality=0 will increase the FPS to 30-40FPS, if you are CPU bound.

Windows 8 also will increase some as It changed the way it use the TSC+HPET, and I don't know why...
Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: Gamba on April 08, 2013, 08:18:27 AM
Ya, so I am thinking why the HPET will affect the mouse movements, boot time and the FPS in the games. :)
Because the Nvidia website also provide a tools to check the accuracy of the QueryPerformanceCounter and related APIs too.  ;)

And the timer will change to 1ms when playing game, video(flash also include) music etc.

So, maybe it will getting a better result because the sync for TSC+HPET has some problem?


Yes it the right choice to utilise the tool provided by nvidia.


Title: Re: Disabling core parking
Post by: BenYeeHua on April 08, 2013, 11:04:15 AM

Yes it the right choice to utilise the tool provided by nvidia.
Ya, but sometimes it can't help as I am a gamer, it need some coding on the game. :)