Recent Posts

31

Process Lasso / Re: Question - CPU Affinity Limit w/Upper Range Using Wildcard

« Last post by nah1982 on December 29, 2020, 09:41:20 PM »

Give 9.8.8.29 beta a spin. Let me know how it goes!

Thanks for the follow-up! I'm on 9.8.8.31 now. It still seems to be attempting, but only once, and then stops, accepting the assignment of 2-15 vs 2-31. Less logging for sure, and less hitching on that. Has been working like a charm all day. Unless it reverts in the future, this seems to be functioning as intended. Thanks again so much for looking at this so quickly!

Sincerely,
Nathaniel

32

Process Lasso / Re: Question - CPU Affinity Limit w/Upper Range Using Wildcard

« Last post by Jeremy Collake on December 27, 2020, 01:08:35 PM »

Give 9.8.8.29 beta a spin. Let me know how it goes!

33

Process Lasso / Re: Question - CPU Affinity Limit w/Upper Range Using Wildcard

« Last post by Jeremy Collake on December 26, 2020, 02:09:09 PM »

..it still is attempting to apply the rules constantly, like it's detecting they're still not set to the original rule vs. taking the rule and only applying it up to the maximum available.

Thank you for that! Please hold for further work.

34

Process Lasso / Re: Question - CPU Affinity Limit w/Upper Range Using Wildcard

« Last post by nah1982 on December 24, 2020, 01:38:23 PM »

I went ahead and made this change (strip unavailable CPUs from CPU affinities prior to applying them) to v9.8.8.27 beta.

If you try it, let me know how it treats you. I believe it is the simplest and most effective way to handle this scenario. It is effectively the same as n-*.

Wow! Wasn't expecting it to be tackled for a while. 

Just downloaded and installed / testing. So it appears to stop erroring out, however, it still is attempting to apply the rules constantly, like it's detecting they're still not set to the original rule vs. taking the rule and only applying it up to the maximum available. 

The overall usage of it's attempt to do so seems to have dropped e.g. little to no impact; it's just still logging those attempts.

Otherwise, I'll continue to test and let you know if I encounter anything else. Thanks!

Sincerely,
Nathaniel

35

Process Lasso / Re: Question - CPU Affinity Limit w/Upper Range Using Wildcard

« Last post by Jeremy Collake on December 21, 2020, 09:43:02 AM »

I went ahead and made this change (strip unavailable CPUs from CPU affinities prior to applying them) to v9.8.8.27 beta.

If you try it, let me know how it treats you. I believe it is the simplest and most effective way to handle this scenario. It is effectively the same as n-*.

36

Process Lasso / Re: Question - CPU Affinity Limit w/Upper Range Using Wildcard

« Last post by Jeremy Collake on December 21, 2020, 08:40:43 AM »

An inverted CPU affinity is an interesting idea.

However, to avoid complexity, probably I will just strip the unavailable CPUs from the bitmask. Then suggest use of named configuration profiles for dramatic changes to the system config like this.

I will try to get to this soon so we can trial its efficacy.

37

Process Lasso / Re: Question - CPU Affinity Limit w/Upper Range Using Wildcard

« Last post by nah1982 on December 20, 2020, 11:13:38 PM »

Enabling the CPU affinity rules to properly function after changes to the system CPU core count is under consideration (issue #777).

Allowing 0-* type rules is an option.

I don't have any ETA to give you, but it is on the radar. I'll post here when progress occurs.

Thanks for the feedback!

An additional feature potential is the exclusion of CPUs explicitly vs. selecting CPUs explicitly to run on; eliminates the need for N -> *

38

Process Lasso / Re: Does process lasso need to run as admin, to enforce all rules?

« Last post by Jeremy Collake on December 20, 2020, 08:42:59 AM »

Services normally consume less resources because they don't host a GUI. They also don't inherently affect performance. It depends on what a service does. They are really just processes, and are varied in characteristics just like apps.

Process Lasso has two components: The GUI (window you see and system tray icon) and the background service (core engine, governor).

It is done this way to minimize resource use. The governor service uses negligible resources. The GUI consumes a little more, particularly when visible. However, you can close the GUI (system tray icon) completely and the rules will still be enforced by the governor.

Running as admin or not doesn't impact CPU use.

39

Process Lasso / Re: Does process lasso need to run as admin, to enforce all rules?

« Last post by empleat on December 20, 2020, 07:36:37 AM »

Thanks! This was extremely helpful!

Tho i don't like services, they usually cause huge input lag. Doesn't it takes more resources to run process lasso as service?

I see this service in processes as separate process and it has cpu usage. I would prefer to run process lasso in admin mode if possible to minimize cpu usage! Ty!

40

Process Lasso / Re: Does process lasso need to run as admin, to enforce all rules?

« Last post by Jeremy Collake on December 20, 2020, 06:48:44 AM »

The Governor process (ProcessGovernor.exe) is what actually enforces rules. These days it is deployed as a system service and so is always running with elevated rights.

If you first installed Process Lasso prior to a couple months ago, I suggest opening 'Options / General settings / Reconfigure the way Process Lasso starts' and ensure it is set to start as a service.

If you want to make configuration changes *without* elevating Process Lasso's GUI, then ensure the configuration path in the dialog following that one is accessible to your user. For instance, maybe place it under your user home directory. I suspect this is the cause of the disappearing profiles (GUI can't access programdata folder with limited rights).

Use of named configuration profiles introduces more complexity, so I suggest verifying everything is working, then start using the profiles.

Let me know how it goes!