Should CPU Core Parking be disabled by default DURING ProBalance Events?

[Jeremy Collake]

This option, I believe, will have a very positive effect on overall system performance in cases where CPU Parking is otherwise enabled. Essentially, in high loads, it will get disabled for a while (when ProBalance is active), then re-enabled. I am very tempted to make it the default, since it will revert to its previous settings no matter what. I do have more work to do though, I want to make cores parked more visible, and the current configuration more visible in the GUI. Also, in the case of an improper termination of the governor, it must be able to restore the original settings, as it does in the case of power profiles.

[BenYeeHua]

Essentially, in high loads, it will get disabled for a while (when ProBalance is active), then re-enabled

Why not disable always when in high loads?
As example, when you having 40%(with fake-core) usage, the core is jumping between parking/unparking.
----Edit
And disable when gaming mode enable, as many person say that after disable core-parking, they feel smooth when gaming.

[Jeremy Collake]

Well, here is where things get a little mixed up, when they can be so simple. Ideally, the user should set core parking behavior for a specific power profile (e.g. disabled for High Performance). Then, set games to enter High Performance power profile when they are active. OR, simply run the PC in High Performance all the time, and use Process Lasso's Energy Saver to drop it back down after only seconds of idle activity (except when games or multimedia processes are running). In other words, I want to try to consolidate these options around power profiles instead of adding more.

The next option to go into ProBalance will thus be 'switch to power profile X'... and ProBalance is already set so that it does not need take any other action (e.g. no priority or affinity adjustments). So, you could already set it to *only* change the CPU parking behavior.

[BenYeeHua]

I forgot the power profile again... 
----
I will choose yes.
Except for the person that having more than 8 real-core of Intel or 16 core/8 module of AMD in a PC... 
----

I want to make cores parked more visible, and the current configuration more visible in the GUI. Also, in the case of an improper termination of the governor, it must be able to restore the original settings, as it does in the case of power profiles.

That what I worry about, an improper termination of the governor when it had disable core-parking.

I only know how to check the core-parking by running the Resource Monitor, check it is showing parked or not.

[Jeremy Collake]

That what I worry about, an improper termination of the governor when it had disable core-parking.

As indicated, I will write code to handle this, as I do for the power profile changes. It is pretty easy to do. Then the next time the governor is run, if it finds it was improperly terminated, it retrieves the 'right' values and restores them.

[BenYeeHua]

it retrieves the 'right' values and restores them.

This is what I think.
---
I think that, the newbie will not know like setting the disabled core-parking to a powerplan and using it by the gaming process.
Just like they will asking why my computer is laggy while running more than 10 software at the background.
But it is safe for them.
With a laggy computer 

[bertie97]

I think that a Probalance led config would fit the bulk of situations best.
It also raises the possibility of allowing the inexperienced or uninterested users who don't want or need anything but hands-free automation from PL to just sit back.
For someone like me who likes to explore, the hierarchy of probalance -> power profile -> park-control seems optimal.
I assign my processes to the various profiles & PL does the rest.  Having the different profiles in this kind of activation hierarchy should help prevent any clashes.  (Guessing but it seems logical.)

& OT I was looking at the Probalance dialog & wondered about the 'Total system wide CPU usage...' having a setting of 18%.  How many hours of testing did it take to arrive at that as optimal?   
My question is actually not as rhetorical as it might be though as I am wondering about the point at which probalance might be considered invasive.
(If this req's looooong answer feel free to skip it until you have spare time)
Of course any methodological Trade Secrets can be excluded from this thread! 

[BenYeeHua]

I don't know, it depend with difference processor, software running.
----
'Total system wide CPU usage...' - "Per-process CPU usage begin"
23%-15%=8%
When the background process is using 15%, it just need 8% from other process CPU usage to start active the ProBalance.
If you raise it, the process can running with 15%-22% more time(when the total CPU usage is not reach 23%)

But I think the setting that should be changing is "Per-process CPU usage begin/stop"

Example: Your are playing a game, the game is using 90% of CPU usage, so how did the other process is eating 15% and get the 5% from the game?
And the process is a BIG CPU eater, it can eat until 15% of CPU usage.

When ProBalance is adjust it, its CPU usage is lowed until 5%, and after the minimum time of process(4200ms) adjust is reach, it will restore to normal(15%), and it start eating again in "1100ms", and ProBalance is adjust it again.

So you will feel after every 4200ms, the game will start lag in 1100ms as the resource is ate by other process.
And it is just repeat and repeat....

But who will getting the process processing like this?
----
But I think that, 'Gaming mode' is using other algorithm, so it maybe solved with Gaming mode enable 
----

It also raises the possibility of allowing the inexperienced or uninterested users who don't want or need anything but hands-free automation from PL to just sit back.

Ya, as ProBalance will do it automatic for you.

[bertie97]

In terms of 'literal' mechanics you are correct BenYeeHua. 
I am however considering the way to reach a personal optimum without testing every single app I use individually.
I could stick to my most often used usage scenario & play about but was wondering if there was a better way than muddling through.

[BenYeeHua]

So you just record the CPU usage per-process/overall, and decide that which value is suitable for you 

[bertie97]

So you just record the CPU usage per-process/overall, and decide that which value is suitable for you 

What part of optimal methodology do you want me to discard? 

[Jeremy Collake]

bertie, I'm in a bit of a rush, so will respond more later (sorry), but the values you see as defaults are actually determined on a per-machine basis, using algorithms I don't want to publicly disclose . I have done a lot of testing to make sure they are what they should be, and there are reasons why they might appear to be overly sensitive. Yes, I'm being vague, but remember, I have  [lame corporate snake oil] competitors

[Jeremy Collake]

One thing I will admit is that they may indeed need refinement in some cases, but I am careful with such refinement. Basically, it takes some time for a CPU monopolizing thread to affect the game, and at the same time, you want to make sure all threads have some chance to use the CPU. Also, you want to make sure you act before CPU monopolization begins, as once it begins, even the governor running at high priority can have trouble intervening. More later... off to do some programming. Less writing, more coding this week .

[BenYeeHua]

even the governor running at high priority can have trouble intervening.

And this is why it is called as CPU Eater 

[bertie97]

bertie, I'm in a bit of a rush, so will respond more later (sorry), but the values you see as defaults are actually determined on a per-machine basis, using algorithms I don't want to publicly disclose . I have done a lot of testing to make sure they are what they should be, and there are reasons why they might appear to be overly sensitive. Yes, I'm being vague, but remember, I have  [lame corporate snake oil] competitors

No problem, I wasn't going to hold my breath.   
& of course I appreciate the possible sensitivity of your design process. 
My general curiosity can certainly be discarded in favour of you developing PL.  The latter is more important to all of us. 

[BenYeeHua]

Because many person is a copycat 

[Jeremy Collake]

Thanks guys .. Listen, I'm pushing out a new final in the next 12-24 hours, as I've made enough changes to where it is 'that time', which means I'll be doing *a lot* of code review and testing here. I do have more to say on these subjects though, so will be back when I can . I want to explain what I can about why certain settings are best, without giving away any secrets ;p. After all, it took me *years* to learn some. Remember, Process Lasso has been around like 15 years now (originally named Process Supervisor).

[BenYeeHua]

Remember, Process Lasso has been around like 15 years now (originally named Process Supervisor).

Ya, the maintain software is showing it as Process Supervisor 

I want to explain what I can about why certain settings are best, without giving away any secrets ;p. After all, it took me *years* to learn some.

And I will using it forever until one day, it was fixed by Microsoft.
But I wonder what time it will fixed. 
Maybe until a lot of people found this problem, and force Microsoft fixing it with all the way it can.
The problem between power save - performance will be continue as Windows start involve into the Tablet world, and the technology of battery is need to upgrade first.
So the Process Lasso is very hard to killed by the fix from Microsoft/reduction of the heat of processor etc.
----
Bed time for me now, I will waiting for the explanation.
Has a good day.

[Jeremy Collake]

Even if, in some future world, Microsoft fixes the core ProBalance problem, as defined at http://bitsum.com/about_probalance.php - something they seem to not have an interest in fixing perhaps because of restrictions they have on legacy apps (maybe), as it *still* exists in NT 6.2, Process Lasso has now grown to offer so many additional features, that if one or two does get antiquated by Microsoft, Process Lasso *remains* useful .

[bertie97]

I look forward to new virtual toys. 

In all seriousness my curiosity over the magical 18% can be utterly disregarded if it is inimical to your work & PLs existence.  It isn't that important (& I can play around in any case.)

I already have too many OT posts to stick my neck out further!   


& back On Topic  I am finding x.1.5 feels 'Sticky' for some reason that isn't clear.  Things just aren't smooth.   
RAM use isn't noticeably different, CPU use is well below 50% but some sticky & sluggish task switching & focus obtaining is present.