Author Topic: Cpu rule, problems & some ideas  (Read 274 times)

Offline Unico

  • New
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Gender: Male
Cpu rule, problems & some ideas
« on: October 05, 2019, 12:28:02 PM »
(Message Translated)
Greetings, I'm a new user.
I'm trying the program in question, and I congratulate you for the management algorithm and other things that I find well done.

But 3 things find me really doubtful:
1 The "performance mode" management with automatic recognition (steam) that actually does its duty, but only for recognition, manually selecting the "performance mode" is not activated the same mode manually, in simple terms: automatically from steam the game it is pumped to the maximum (priority, etc.), for games that are not part of the aforementioned platform and with manual selection this does not happen.
2 with the "jolly" characters (*) it is possible to enter complete routes, this is excellent, but it only works for the "performance mode" option, this does not work with the "cpu" "priority and affinity" options (otherwise manually I would solve the question of point 1)
3 the saddest point, watchdog rules on lowering cpu or the cpu limiter function are useless, for what reason:
Watchdog: if you set an application that reaches a % cpu, for must use less cores, even if you then release power, the aforementioned application will not recover anymore, remaining always low.
Cpu limiter: even if you set a limit % cpu you cannot decide on which cores to act because the choice is automatic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both options are useless, because during the "global effort" the % cpu also of the application on which you want to apply the rule, is lowered by the system.
The error of both systems lies in the control % cpu linked to the application and not of the % cpu of the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A good change would be:
-Adding the second time control function "for a period of" to the "watchdog" options allows you to have a better "cpu limiter" control system (cpu limiter which can also be eliminated)
-With an additional setting function on the % of "cpu global"

So you can have rules like:
When the % of "global cpu" reaches a designated % for xxxx seconds, to the following applications xxxx (one per rule, or multiple) change to xxxx "core" selected (or other rules), check the % of "cpu globale" every xxxx seconds (if it is not as in the rule, reset in the settings as they were before the rule)

Thank you for understanding.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 10:05:04 AM by Unico »



Offline Jeremy Collake

  • Administrator
  • Member#
  • *****
  • Posts: 5262
  • Gender: Male
  • The Lasso
    • Bitsum
Re: Cpu Rule & Problems
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2019, 09:45:13 AM »

Quote
1 The "performance mode" management with automatic recognition (steam) that actually does its duty, but only for recognition, manually selecting the "performance mode" is not activated the same mode manually, in simple terms: automatically from steam the game it is pumped to the maximum (priority, etc.), for games that are not part of the aforementioned platform and with manual selection this does not happen.

The priority settings are not changed by Performance Mode, only the active power plan is changed to Bitsum Highest Performance. It isn't clear to me what you are seeing here, but it may be incorrect expectations. Please try to clarify.

Quote
2 with the "jolly" characters (*) it is possible to enter complete routes, this is excellent, but it only works for the "performance mode" option, this does not work with the "cpu" "priority and affinity" options (otherwise manually I would solve the question of point 1)

You need to turn on path matching. In any of several configuration dialogs (e.g. Options / CPU / Configure persistent CPU priorities ...), there is a checkbox at the bottom "Also match process pathnames". See attached screenshot.

Quote
3 the saddest point, watchdog rules on lowering cpu or the cpu limiter function are useless, for what reason:
Watchdog: if you set an application that reaches a % cpu, for must use less cores, even if you then release power, the aforementioned application will not recover anymore, remaining always low. Cpu limiter: even if you set a limit % cpu you cannot decide on which cores to act because the choice is automatic.

You would need to set a second Watchdog rule to restore the process's CPU affinity when it is under the target threshold.

We are considering allowing specific CPU assignments in the CPU Limiter.

Thanks for the feedback!
Software Engineer. Bitsum LLC.

Offline Unico

  • New
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cpu Rule & Problems
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2019, 06:41:54 AM »
Thank you Jeremy for your kind reply

- The "point 1" happened to me because I had already manually set "all possible" on high priority for 1 game on steam, automatic-recognition therefore acted accordingly, my mistake- O_T
- The solution you gave me "regarding the path function" pathnames is excellent, so I solved the "point 1" just like I wanted :)
Even if it does not work in the "configure default I / O priorities" setting (here a doubt, would really want to give a major I / O priority to an important game or application?)
- I think that if you add the "check every xxx time" function to watchdog, you will not need to have the cpu limiter function.
- "set a second Watchdog rule to restore the process's CPU affinity when it is under the target threshold", it is a paradox? We end up "playing ping-pong" with the application settings?
- The solution would be to be able to set the rule on the global % CPU option and not on the used % Cpu of the application
- Or (another crazy idea XD) to be able to set in the rules that: with the start of a path/* or application the xxxx applications have activated the rules (lowering priorities, cores, etc.) Practically cross-cutting rules.

Offline Jeremy Collake

  • Administrator
  • Member#
  • *****
  • Posts: 5262
  • Gender: Male
  • The Lasso
    • Bitsum
Re: Cpu Rule & Problems
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2019, 10:07:46 AM »
I've fixed the I/O priorities pathname matching going forward, thanks for letting me know!

Quote
I think that if you add the "check every xxx time" function to watchdog, you will not need to have the cpu limiter function.

The 'for (seconds)' field lets you specify how long a rule must be over the threshold before it is engaged. Do you find this to not be working or ineffective?

Quote
"set a second Watchdog rule to restore the process's CPU affinity when it is under the target threshold", it is a paradox? We end up "playing ping-pong" with the application settings?

It isn't a paradox, but yes there would be some back-and-forth. Same would be true of the CPU Limiter as the rule is engaged and disengaged. The above mentioned time-over-threshold should allow the user to prevent it from engaging more often than they want.

Quote
The solution would be to be able to set the rule on the global % CPU option and not on the used % Cpu of the application

That could be added going forward, but does introduce further rule complexity.

Quote
- Or (another crazy idea XD) to be able to set in the rules that: with the start of a path/* or application the xxxx applications have activated the rules (lowering priorities, cores, etc.) Practically cross-cutting rules.

I am not clear on what you mean here, but regarding custom syntax to combine or change rule behavior: This is an option, but I try to avoid it due to the complexity it introduces. If it solves a common problem, then I'll consider it.
Software Engineer. Bitsum LLC.

Offline Unico

  • New
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cpu Rule & Problems
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2019, 03:51:02 PM »
Glad to have been a minimum of help and not just a heavy bore. XD

I enclose some images, trying to better explain my ideas.

Offline Jeremy Collake

  • Administrator
  • Member#
  • *****
  • Posts: 5262
  • Gender: Male
  • The Lasso
    • Bitsum
Re: Cpu Rule & Problems
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2019, 06:33:35 AM »
Ah, yes, I see. Thank you for the clarification.

I will absolutely consider and keep this request in mind.
Software Engineer. Bitsum LLC.

Offline Unico

  • New
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cpu Rule & Problems
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2019, 07:46:58 AM »
I update the concept,
very pleased "the idea" is welcome :)

It is obvious that if we could further expand this concept "in more than one path or application", giving each one his own rules and rules for each variant, it would be even better, but we understand that already a modification of the program with this concept even if basic, must already be, a demanding job. O_T

If I have more "crazy ideas" XD
I will allow myself with regard to update more the concept.

Offline Jeremy Collake

  • Administrator
  • Member#
  • *****
  • Posts: 5262
  • Gender: Male
  • The Lasso
    • Bitsum
Re: Cpu Rule & Problems
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2019, 04:47:03 PM »
This is do-able. Please do post any further ideas you have. I don't make any promises, but as this code is extended, I may very well incorporate some of all of your ideas.
Software Engineer. Bitsum LLC.

Offline Unico

  • New
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cpu rule, problems & some ideas
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2019, 10:12:34 AM »
Without wishing to offend, I continue to post some other ideas in this post.

While "I tested the various options" I noticed some "graphic things" that could if considered appropriate and welcome, be retouched:
1A- Personally I find that having the interface divided into 2 distinct tabs for: All processes and Active processes is comfortable in some respects, but just as inconvenient under others. If "in a possible change" the windows were merged into one (to have everything under control in a single window), I would find it pleasing to add "a color or a column" to the active processes, as for all the "CPU utilization graph ".
1B- If, on the contrary, you prefer to leave the two windows separate, it would be advisable to have the "icons" and "identical column options" found in "All processes" also in "Active processes", and have "All processes" the "CPU utilization graph" column.
2- "The bar icon" which shows the graph being green is too similar to the standard windows, is good to have it completely orange or red. Even all the standard Process Lasso icons if they were "red" would be more stylish :)
3- The graph can report when "an event intervenes" but only by passing with the mouse we read the application, the ideal would always be to see it.

I attach pictures.
Thanks as always for attention.

Offline Jeremy Collake

  • Administrator
  • Member#
  • *****
  • Posts: 5262
  • Gender: Male
  • The Lasso
    • Bitsum
Re: Cpu rule, problems & some ideas
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2019, 10:41:04 AM »
Thanks for the continued feedback!

As Process Lasso is further refined, I'll keep these suggestions in mind.
Software Engineer. Bitsum LLC.

Offline Unico

  • New
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cpu rule, problems & some ideas
« Reply #10 on: Yesterday at 09:36:39 AM »
Thank you for appreciation :)

A question:
Is there the possibility of understanding what could cause a sudden lowering of responsiveness (not even the complete actions log, reports anything about it), which "casually" (but I don't think it's casually) appears even if the PC has no active application or under stress? it would not be bad, if possible, to have given a statement of the cause of this lowering.

Thank you again.

Offline Jeremy Collake

  • Administrator
  • Member#
  • *****
  • Posts: 5262
  • Gender: Male
  • The Lasso
    • Bitsum
Re: Cpu rule, problems & some ideas
« Reply #11 on: Yesterday at 12:56:18 PM »
Unfortunately, it is not trivial to identify the cause of such responsiveness dips.

These can occur intermittently, and are sometimes caused by power state transitions. Other times, one or more Windows subsystems experience a delay for any number of reasons.

Process Lasso's system responsiveness metric doesn't have any knowledge of why the dip occurred, and there is no reliable way to generically determine the culprit.
Software Engineer. Bitsum LLC.

Offline Unico

  • New
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cpu rule, problems & some ideas
« Reply #12 on: Today at 05:46:39 AM »
Thank you for your diligent and exhaustive answer.

After several tests I reduced the "previous responsiveness question" to the minimum by manually and more intervening on the "priority class" options.
Bearing in mind that the "Real Time" setting is rightly not recommended and therefore not to be used,
and that "idle" is for really static processes (practically applications are active but completely stopped, so better not to do manually),
keeping a "detached, between groups" setting as I have shown in the image, there is a marked improvement :)

Online edkiefer

  • Volunteer User Moderator
  • Member#
  • *****
  • Posts: 1691
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cpu rule, problems & some ideas
« Reply #13 on: Today at 07:18:46 AM »
Thank you for your diligent and exhaustive answer.

After several tests I reduced the "previous responsiveness question" to the minimum by manually and more intervening on the "priority class" options.
Bearing in mind that the "Real Time" setting is rightly not recommended and therefore not to be used,
and that "idle" is for really static processes (practically applications are active but completely stopped, so better not to do manually),
keeping a "detached, between groups" setting as I have shown in the image, there is a marked improvement :)
Thanks for the input, There are plenty of places for "idle" priority to, in fact, I have run into very few processes that it hurt and not like its name it is still able to do plenty of work.

If you feel brave in Probalance advanced settings you can enable idle restraint instead of below normal. Below normal is a safer bet but with apps, I have tested it works fine too.
You just need to test it if you want to go down that rabbit hole :)
Bitsum QA Engineer

Offline Jeremy Collake

  • Administrator
  • Member#
  • *****
  • Posts: 5262
  • Gender: Male
  • The Lasso
    • Bitsum
Re: Cpu rule, problems & some ideas
« Reply #14 on: Today at 07:22:51 AM »
I would caution against too much use of the High priority class. It can cause some strange effects for some applications.

How much these changes are mitigating the responsiveness dips may be hard to reliably determine given the intermittent nature of the dips.
Software Engineer. Bitsum LLC.

Offline Unico

  • New
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cpu rule, problems & some ideas
« Reply #15 on: Today at 08:35:57 AM »
Good to know :)

I enclose "another" advice XD

Online edkiefer

  • Volunteer User Moderator
  • Member#
  • *****
  • Posts: 1691
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cpu rule, problems & some ideas
« Reply #16 on: Today at 09:40:48 AM »
Those settings are not a global setting (I/O, CPU priority and CPU affinity) they are manual fixed process settings, so no need for don't act on services as you have to add/edit each process for those. They are not part of Probalance directly.
Bitsum QA Engineer