Proof of Optimus 2X actually utilizing two cores? - LG Optimus 2x

I'm not sure that Optimus 2X is actually utilizing the second core with Android 2.2 in any useful fashion.
Kernel reports one core:
cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep processor | wc –l
1
It does however state that the number of BogoMIPS is about 2000 (Nexus S states 1000):
cat /proc/cpuinfo
Processor : ARMv7 Processor rev 0 (v7l)
processor : 0
BogoMIPS : 1998.84
Pageloads are almost exactly the same as with the Nexus S (2.3 of course, but still...) and it's an equal race in both sunspider and browsermark. Funny thing though, I did have a go with the Motorola XOOM during MWC and it performed 100% better than LG Optimus 2X in Sunspider - about 4000ms vs 2000ms.
Does anyone know more about this? Is there an easy way to tell if two cores are being utilized or not? It sure as hell doesn't feel like it.
And if it does utilize two cores, how does it work? I can't really wrap my head around it since the kernel doesn't seem to be aware of the second core. Isn't that a requirement in order for any higher level applications/services (ie. Dalvik) to actually use it?

Check dmesg. It does say that there are 2 cores. Android 2.2 isnt optimized for 2 cores. However the scheduler should be able to distribute threads to both cores.

kingzero666 said:
Check dmesg. It does say that there are 2 cores. Android 2.2 isnt optimized for 2 cores. However the scheduler should be able to distribute threads to both cores.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Output:
Code:
#dmesg | grep -i cpu
<7>[ 4379.373999] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
<7>[ 4379.374058] CPU1 attaching NULL sched-domain.
<7>[ 4379.437570] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
<5>[ 4379.442097] CPU1: clean shutdown
<4>[ 4409.047632] CPU1: Booted secondary processor
<7>[ 4409.047688] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
<7>[ 4409.107329] CPU0 attaching sched-domain:
<7>[ 4409.107340] domain 0: span 0-1 level CPU
<7>[ 4409.107363] CPU1 attaching sched-domain:
<7>[ 4409.107369] domain 0: span 0-1 level CPU
<7>[ 4414.885703] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
<7>[ 4414.885743] CPU1 attaching NULL sched-domain.
<7>[ 4414.997475] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
<5>[ 4414.999707] CPU1: clean shutdown
<4>[ 6340.902826] CPU1: Booted secondary processor
<7>[ 6340.902901] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
<7>[ 6340.987202] CPU0 attaching sched-domain:
<7>[ 6340.987217] domain 0: span 0-1 level CPU
<7>[ 6340.987242] CPU1 attaching sched-domain:
<7>[ 6340.987249] domain 0: span 0-1 level CPU
<7>[ 6348.879559] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
<7>[ 6348.879601] CPU1 attaching NULL sched-domain.
<7>[ 6348.997274] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
<5>[ 6348.999688] CPU1: clean shutdown
Is there any way to check if it's actually being used though? I'm yet to see a single benchmark or user case scenario where there are any indications of dual core usage.

Cant check it out for myself. But look here. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4144/...gra-2-review-the-first-dual-core-smartphone/7
JohnRogers said:
Is there any way to check if it's actually being used though? I'm yet to see a single benchmark or user case scenario where there are any indications of dual core usage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Depends on the benchmark. If its not optimized for multi core usage you wont see any difference. A optimized benchmark should run different tasks with multiple threads at the same time. I dont know how current benchmarks on Android are coded. But for example look at Quadrant. You can see how the different tasks are started only after the previous is finished. So its probably not optimized to run on dual cores.
btw do you already have the 2x? Is it the international version or the korean one?

kingzero666 said:
Cant check it out for myself. But look here.
Depends on the benchmark. If its not optimized for multi core usage you wont see any difference. A optimized benchmark should run different tasks with multiple threads at the same time. I dont know how current benchmarks on Android are coded. But for example look at Quadrant. You can see how the different tasks are started only after the previous is finished. So its probably not optimized to run on dual cores.
btw do you already have the 2x? Is it the international version or the korean one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I have the international version.
While true, it seems that the browser should be a perfect example of where that extra core would come in very handy, yet the performance doesn't differ from what the Nexus S is performing if you compare page loading time.
Any suggestions of benchmarking scripts/apps that are intended for SMP configurations? I would very much like to figure this out.
Some more info from dmesg, pretty much identical with anandtechs model:
Code:
<6>[ 0.000000] Initializing cgroup subsys cpu
<5>[ 0.000000] Linux version 2.6.32.9 ([email protected]) (gcc version 4.4.0 (GCC) ) #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Feb 7 16:20:46 KST 2011
<4>[ 0.000000] CPU: ARMv7 Processor [411fc090] revision 0 (ARMv7), cr=10c53c7f
<4>[ 0.000000] CPU: VIPT nonaliasing data cache, VIPT nonaliasing instruction cache
<4>[ 0.000000] Machine: Tegra 2 Development System
<4>[ 0.000000] Framebuffer tag with 65536 handle
<4>[ 0.000000] Shmoo tag with 65537 handle
<4>[ 0.000000] Found a warmboot tag!
<4>[ 0.000000] Memory policy: ECC disabled, Data cache writealloc
<7>[ 0.000000] On node 0 totalpages: 98048
<7>[ 0.000000] free_area_init_node: node 0, pgdat c063ecc0, node_mem_map c0746000
<7>[ 0.000000] Normal zone: 766 pages used for memmap
<7>[ 0.000000] Normal zone: 0 pages reserved
<7>[ 0.000000] Normal zone: 97282 pages, LIFO batch:31
<6>[ 0.000000] PERCPU: Embedded 8 pages/cpu @c0a52000 s10560 r8192 d14016 u65536
<6>[ 0.000000] pcpu-alloc: s10560 r8192 d14016 u65536 alloc=16*4096
<6>[ 0.000000] pcpu-alloc: [0] 0 [0] 1
<4>[ 0.000000] Built 1 zonelists in Zone order, mobility grouping on. Total pages: 97282
<5>[ 0.000000] Kernel command line: [email protected] [email protected] loglevel=0 muic_state=1 lpj=9994240 CRC=301000339bedb21 vmalloc=256M brdrev=1.0 uniqueid=280410144405557 video=tegrafb console=ttyS0,115200n8 usbcore.old_scheme_first=1 tegraboot=sdmmc userdebug=enable tegrapart=recovery:35e00:2800:800,linux:34700:1000:800,mbr:400:200:800,system:600:2bc00:800,cache:2c200:8000:800,misc:34200:400:800,userdata:38700:c0000:800
<4>[ 0.000000] [hee.seo] 1.0
<6>[ 0.000000] muic_state = 1
<6>[ 0.000000] PID hash table entries: 2048 (order: 1, 8192 bytes)
<6>[ 0.000000] Dentry cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 6, 262144 bytes)
<6>[ 0.000000] Inode-cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 5, 131072 bytes)
<6>[ 0.000000] Memory: 383MB = 383MB total
<5>[ 0.000000] Memory: 380672KB available (5900K code, 1305K data, 192K init, 0K highmem)
<6>[ 0.000000] SLUB: Genslabs=11, HWalign=32, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=2, Nodes=1
<6>[ 0.000000] Hierarchical RCU implementation.
<6>[ 0.000000] NR_IRQS:416
<4>[ 0.000000] Console: colour dummy device 80x30
<6>[ 187.294679] Calibrating delay loop (skipped) preset value.. 1998.84 BogoMIPS (lpj=9994240)
<4>[ 187.294773] Mount-cache hash table entries: 512
<6>[ 187.295213] Initializing cgroup subsys cpuacct
<6>[ 187.295236] Initializing cgroup subsys devices
<6>[ 187.295246] Initializing cgroup subsys freezer
<6>[ 187.295273] CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
<6>[ 187.295479] Calibrating local timer... 1.19MHz.
<4>[ 187.404739] CPU1: Booted secondary processor
<6>[ 187.404854] Brought up 2 CPUs
<6>[ 187.404869] SMP: Total of 2 processors activated (3997.69 BogoMIPS).
<7>[ 187.404891] CPU0 attaching sched-domain:
<7>[ 187.404901] domain 0: span 0-1 level CPU
<7>[ 187.404911] groups: 0 1
<7>[ 187.404928] CPU1 attaching sched-domain:
<7>[ 187.404935] domain 0: span 0-1 level CPU
<7>[ 187.404943] groups: 1 0
<6>[ 187.428463] regulator: core version 0.5

You could try starting the same benchmark twice and let them run their tests at the same time, although i dont really know how you would do that on android.
Did you try rooting your phone?

kingzero666 said:
You could try starting the same benchmark twice and let them run their tests at the same time, although i dont really know how you would do that on android.
Did you try rooting your phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's already rooted (SuperOneClickv1.7) with busybox installed.

Sorry for my offtopic questions. But it seems like youre one of the first who have the international version of the 2x so i am curious. Hope you dont mind my questions. Did you try to check how the bootloader is secured?

kingzero666 said:
Sorry for my offtopic questions. But it seems like youre one of the first who have the international version of the 2x so i am curious. Hope you dont mind my questions. Did you try to check how the bootloader is secured?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I'm afraid not. Access is limited.
Back to topic: Has anyone seen anything that indicates dual core usage?

Take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ0CkqKqmts&hd=1
Page loading times doesn't differ at all from the Nexus S, which in some cases actually seems faster - and yes, I know it's a case of Froyo vs Gingerbread, but still?
Shouldn't a dual core CPU be at least 30-40% faster with multithreaded applications? At the very minium?

Try this benchmark on a single and dual core device.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=972855

kingzero666 said:
Try this benchmark on a single and dual core device.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=972855
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks.
Smartbench 2011 (Beta 6)
Optimus 2X
Productivity index: 2 492
Games Index: 2 593
Pi: 2 316
Mandelbrot: 2 880
GLTunnel: 2 418
String: 2 353
GLJellyFish: 2 794
Nexus S
Productivity index: 922
Games index: 2 462
Pi: 1 520
Mandelbrot: 596
GLTunnel: 2 557
String: 1 087
GLJellyFish: 2 794
Smartbench 2010
Optimus 2X
Productivity index: 1732
Games Index: 2852
Pi: 2627
Mandelbrot: 1000
GLTunnel: 3550
File IO Small: 1670
File IO Large: 1499
GLJellyFish: 3477
Nexus S
Productivity index: 1183
Games index: 2903
Pi: 752
Mandelbrot: 1255
GLTunnel: 3607
File IO Small: 2005
File IO Large: 2622
GLJellyFish: 2993
It stands pretty clear that it's possible to take advantage of that extra core. With the default Android apps with Android 2.2/Froyo, the gain is really next to none though, probably because they're simply not optimized.

JohnRogers said:
It stands pretty clear that it's possible to take advantage of that extra core. With the default Android apps with Android 2.2/Froyo, the gain is really next to none though, probably because they're simply not optimized.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is true. The Linux Kernel behind the versions of Android shipped on Optimus 2X and Atrix (and Xoom, etc) are compiled with SMP flag on, which means it WILL detect and use additional cores when needed. When Smartbench 2011 is ran, I actually transfer the "fingerprint" of the Linux Kernel which contains this info. So far, I am only seeing these flags on phones that feature dual-cores (which is understandable). And remember, Linux has been supporting SMP for a very long time so its not necessarily because they are newer kernel versions.
And as you mentioned already, 99.9% of all current apps won't run any faster since they are not symmetrically multi-threaded. But if you are already running some background services, then obviously your foreground app will still run faster. Still, it won't be as visible as apps that natively spawn multiple threads like Smartbench 2011.
Smartbench 2011 in fact, keeps 4 thread alive all the time, so when quad-core phones arrive, you will see further improvements in speed.

JohnRogers said:
Take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ0CkqKqmts&hd=1
Page loading times doesn't differ at all from the Nexus S, which in some cases actually seems faster - and yes, I know it's a case of Froyo vs Gingerbread, but still?
Shouldn't a dual core CPU be at least 30-40% faster with multithreaded applications? At the very minium?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't trust that video. I have seen videos of the NS, the Iphone 4 and the 2X next to next other and the 2X wins by alot. I know all the videos of the 2X doing flash shows the phone blowing away the other phones FPS wise. So that has to be using both cores to do that. Also in that video watch the Wifi signal go up and down all the time on both phones. That could also be effecting the speed at which pages load. Maybe one phone or the other is losing signal at one point. Either way the 2X is far better then the NS. Google should of waited and made the 2X there new Nexus.

Related

Benchmarks

I decided to start a new thread to experiment instead of posting inside the 1.3 thread.
Even with all this cache boosting, it seems the reported free memory is still above 60MB.
That's with no today plugins running.
Here are the settings I am testing:
Code:
[HKLM\System\StorageManager\FATFS]
"BufferSize"=dword:0x000400 (decimal 1024) (old:256)
"CacheSize"=dword:0x004000 (decimal 16384) (old:4096)
"DataCacheSize"=dword:0x004000 (decimal 16384) (old:4096)
"DLL"="fatfsd.dll"
"EnableCache"=dword:00000001
"EnableCache4Way"=dword:00000001 (old: didn't exist)
"EnableCacheWarm"=dword:00000001
"FatCacheSize"= 0x004000 (decimal 16384) (old:1024)
"Flags"=dword:00001006 (writethrough bla bla)
"MaxCachedFileSize"=dword:00020000 (don't cache >128Kb files)
"Paging"=dword:00000001
"PathCacheEntries"=dword:00000400 (1024) (old:256)
"UpdateAcces"=dword:00000000 (do not update access times, should have a positive impact flash wearing)
[HKLM\System\StorageManager\IMGFS]
"BufferSize"=dword:0x000400 (decimal 1024) (old:not sure)
"CacheSize"=dword:0x004000 (decimal 16384) (old:not sure)
"DataCacheSize"=dword:0x004000 (decimal 16384) (old:not sure)
"PathCacheEntries"=dword:00000400 (1024) (old:256)
"UpdateAcces"=dword:00000000 (do not update access times, should have a positive impact flash wearing, not sur if it has any effect on IMGFS)
[HKLM\System\StorageManager\Profiles\FlashDrv\FATFS]
"BufferSize"=dword:0x000400 (decimal 1024) (old:256)
"CacheSize"=dword:00000400
"EnableCache"=dword:00000001
"PathCacheEntries"=dword:00000400 (1024) (old:not sure)
[HKLM\System\StorageManager\Profiles\FlashDrv\IMGFS]
"BufferSize"=dword:0x000400 (decimal 1024) (old:256)
"CacheSize"=dword:00000400 (at the cost of 256 Kb RAM)
"EnableCache"=dword:00000001
"PathCacheEntries"=dword:00000400 (1024) (old:128)
Therewas one single test which simply failed, I don't know why. I believe this failed test is the reason why the overall score is unavailable. But the machine is stable so far, I have no complaints.
The results are the following:
Code:
reference machines (from spb benchmark website database):
(1) Compaq iPAQ 3600 Series (2000, 206Mhz)
(2) Asus MyPal A620 (2003, 400MHz)
(3) Asus MyPal A716 (2003, 400MHz)
(4) Fujitsu-Siemens Pocket LOOX 600 (2003, 400MHz)
(5) Fujitsu-Siemens Pocket LOOX 610 (2003, 400MHz)
(6) Toshiba e750 (2003, 400MHz)
(7) Toshiba e755 (2002, 400Mhz)
(8) Dell Axim x51v (WM5, 400MHz, video hardware accel)
AND...
(9) Blue Angel WM5 Helmi 1.3 beta
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Comments
Spb Benchmark index 1000 1573 1622 939 1610 1225 1073 - unavailable probably because of the database error
CPU index 1000 1858 1796 1202 1813 1838 1234 1646 upper half, not that far from the others
File system index 1000 1092 1205 670 1175 1128 1270 - unavailable probably because of the database error
Graphics index 1000 4034 3954 1367 3943 688 651 1207 before tweaking it was around 850
ActiveSync index 1000 1458 2192 480 1775 1751 1479 3269 WINNER! And i am using USB 1.1!
Platform index 1000 1277 1510 796 1341 1085 850 - unavailable probably because of the database error
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Comments
Write 1 MB file (KB/sec) 794 1285 1284 589 1282 1221 1200 630 2160 Double the 2003 write results!
Read 1 MB file (MB/sec) 18.2 28.7 27.8 16.5 27.4 26.8 20.7 3.78 4.14 Better than the x51v
Copy 1 MB file (KB/sec) 790 1281 1279 581 1279 1252 1180 600 3526 Hmmm, sweet buffers...
Write 10 KB x 100 files (KB/sec) 560 654 928 422 936 859 768 245 314 different from above results, ROM technology might explain the difference...
Read 10 KB x 100 files (MB/sec) 6.35 8.64 10.4 6.34 10.7 9.62 7.6 1.88 1.43 here we lost against x51v
Copy 10 KB x 100 files (KB/sec) 476 500 820 376 830 757 626 247 290 below 2003, but still decent.
Directory list of 2000 files (thousands of files/sec) 123 23.6 22.2 14.1 20.4 20.5 153 1.33 8.19 trouncing x51v, but humble compared to 2003
Internal database read (records/sec) 421 1549 1539 1059 1518 1391 503 1950 error THIS is the mysterious ERROR...
Graphics test: DDB BitBlt (frames/sec) 26.9 316 309 185 305 68.4 42.3 277 109 HW graphics might give x51v the edge here...
Graphics test: DIB BitBlt (frames/sec) 13.5 27.2 27.3 14.7 27.3 22.9 29.9 22.2 31.1 but not here :)
Graphics test: GAPI BitBlt (frames/sec) 216 752 725 176 722 73.2 72.4 58.9 134 neither here :D
Pocket Word document open (KB/sec) 31 44.2 105 61.9 41.6 37.7 28.3 12.7 7.3 long loading times... UPX'ed apps might have an impact here?
Pocket Internet Explorer HTML load (KB/sec) 13.1 7.88 9.27 3.74 9.49 7.28 6.67 7.05 3.61 ditto
Pocket Internet Explorer JPEG load (KB/sec) 52.8 154 239 149 245 233 105 135 53.8
File Explorer large folder list (files/sec) 515 641 598 382 625 569 291 483 58.6
Compress 1 MB file using ZIP (KB/sec) 106 263 241 152 249 243 89.1 241 195 not beating x51v every time, but still \
Decompress 1024x768 JPEG file (KB/sec) 319 613 609 426 609 607 567 657 533 a good performer...
Arkaball frames per second (frames/sec) 108 250 242 102 245 61 55.7 52.6 96.3 seems x51v video drivers are teh suxx0rz
CPU test: Whetstones MFLOPS (Mop/sec) 0.046 0.076 0.076 0.061 0.077 0.075 0.076 0.117 0.074
CPU test: Whetstones MOPS (Mop/sec) 34.1 55.3 55.4 54.3 55.5 55.2 55.4 84.9 54.8
CPU test: Whetstones MWIPS (Mop/sec) 2.98 5.01 5.02 4.04 5.03 4.99 4.94 7.53 4.82
Memory test: copy 1 MB using memcpy (MB/sec) 70.4 103 98.4 61.2 99 106 90.6 116 102
ActiveSync: upload 1 MB file (KB/sec) 115 135 203 46.9 158 157 135 - 332
ActiveSync: download 1 MB file (KB/sec) 94 250 377 67.8 367 345 274 - 409
There is only one WM5 device besides teh BA, which I collected from this review:
http://www.mobiletechreview.com/Dell-Axim-X51v.htm
Helmi, can you make a hotfix cab called 'Brazilian_Joe_UNTESTED_performance_tweaks.cab' to apply these tweaks and add it to Helmi 1.3 beta front page, with a big red fat warning?
EDIT: The 'internal database benchmark error' happens even with the default 'Helmi 1.3 beta' registry values, so it's not a by product of my settings. Just to reinstate, even with this error the machine still runs without problems.
Nice work, Brazilian Joe! But the real question is: do these tweaks affect the real performance of the BA? I mean do you notice any improvements during normal work (with all today plug-ins, etc.)
That's actually all that matters, because benchmark results don't necessarily reflect the real-life performance.
If you say the difference is noticable (I mean "really" noticable), the we all should give it a try. But if it's only a benchmark improvement, I think we should not mess with the settings...
Regards,
Martin
MHoefler said:
Nice work, Brazilian Joe! But the real question is: do these tweaks affect the real performance of the BA? I mean do you notice any improvements during normal work (with all today plug-ins, etc.)
That's actually all that matters, because benchmark results don't necessarily reflect the real-life performance.
If you say the difference is noticable (I mean "really" noticable), the we all should give it a try. But if it's only a benchmark improvement, I think we should not mess with the settings...
Regards,
Martin
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the whole SBSH doing a party on my today screen under normal circumstances (PocketBreeze etc). My first benchmark (which I lost) still had all those on, andthe numbers were inequivocal.
It was not a 'whoa, look! 1KB/s write improvement!'...
when I said improved responsiveness, that's what it meant. switching tabs in today plugins, program loading, most tasks improved, the experience was more fluid.
Then I procceeded to have more barebone results to avoid having the programs distort the numbers.
That said, I completely agree with your consideration. My next steps are going to be:
1) reinstall everything
2) do another 'vanilla settings' test with everything running
3) put the tweaked settings back on
4) benchmark one more time...
So that we can verify the results.
Just working on my Settings also ..
seems I have forgotten somethin in the settings since I cant't achive the same results than earlier .. (reminds me on helmi not remembering this WiFi driver thing )
EDIT:
Test Time Speed % of iPAQ 3650* speed
Write 1 MB file 99.2 ms 10323 KB/sec 1300%
Read 1 MB file 58.1 ms 17.2 MB/sec 94%
Copy 1 MB file 39.4 ms 25990 KB/sec 3292%
Write 10 KB x 100 files 1718 ms 596 KB/sec 106%
Read 10 KB x 100 files 269 ms 3.72 MB/sec 59%
Copy 10 KB x 100 files 1362 ms 752 KB/sec 158%
Directory list of 2000 files 238 ms 8.41 thousands of files/sec 7%
Some more testing required .. will set up the same Bench as BJ next time
EDIT2:
Okay .. here is what I am doing .. atm I am only switching values in the FATFS:
BufferSize:16 or 8 try around
CacheSize:0 (System reserves Memory) or 16384
DataCacheSize: 4096
will do more testing .. but smaller buffers seems to be much faster ...
Helmi 1.3 vanilla settings, no apps installed.
Free memory: 67.39 MB
CPU index 1386.85
Graphics index 1154.58
ActiveSync index 2502.05
Test - Time - Speed - % of iPAQ 3650 speed (reference machine)
Write 1 MB file 2471 ms 414 KB/sec 52%
Read 1 MB file 440 ms 2.27 MB/sec 12%
Copy 1 MB file 2014 ms 508 KB/sec 64%
Write 10 KB x 100 files 7968 ms 129 KB/sec 23%
Read 10 KB x 100 files 960 ms 1.04 MB/sec 16%
Copy 10 KB x 100 files 7567 ms 135 KB/sec 28%
Directory list of 2000 files 2692 ms 0.743 thousands of files/sec 1%
Internal database read error
Graphics test: DDB BitBlt 9.71 ms 103 frames/sec 383%
Graphics test: DIB BitBlt 32.7 ms 30.6 frames/sec 226%
Graphics test: GAPI BitBlt 7.81 ms 128 frames/sec 59%
Pocket Word document open 43656 ms 5.97 KB/sec 19%
Pocket Internet Explorer HTML load 7958 ms 3.11 KB/sec 24%
Pocket Internet Explorer JPEG load 5221 ms 48.5 KB/sec 92%
File Explorer large folder list 35332 ms 56.6 files/sec 11%
Compress 1 MB file using ZIP 8807 ms 115 KB/sec 108%
Decompress 1024x768 JPEG file 496 ms 566 KB/sec 177%
Arkaball frames per second 10.6 ms 94.8 frames/sec 88%
CPU test: Whetstones MFLOPS 5369 ms 0.069 Mop/sec 150%
CPU test: Whetstones MOPS 1211 ms 52 Mop/sec 153%
CPU test: Whetstones MWIPS 10821 ms 4.62 Mop/sec 155%
Memory test: copy 1 MB using memcpy 10.2 ms 98.5 MB/sec 140%
ActiveSync: upload 1 MB file 4145 ms 247 KB/sec 215%
ActiveSync: download 1 MB file 3013 ms 340 KB/sec 362%
Storage card test results
Storage card "RAMdisk"
Speed index = 369.2
Test Time Speed % of iPAQ 3650* speed
Writing 1 MB file 109 ms 9377 KB/sec
Reading 1 MB file 77.7 ms 12.9 MB/sec
Copying 1 MB file to storage card 581 ms 1763 KB/sec
Copying 1 MB file from storage card 1524 ms 672 KB/sec
Writing 100 of 10 KB files 2275 ms 450 KB/sec
Reading 100 of 10 KB files 352 ms 2.84 MB/sec
Copying 100 of 10 KB files to storage card 2330 ms 440 KB/sec
Copying 100 of 10 KB files from storage card 7744 ms 132 KB/sec
Directory listing: 2000 files 247 ms 8.11 thousands of files/sec
Storage card "Storage Card"
Speed index = 344.21
Test Time Speed % of iPAQ 3650* speed
Writing 1 MB file 479 ms 2139 KB/sec
Reading 1 MB file 71.5 ms 14 MB/sec
Copying 1 MB file to storage card 865 ms 1184 KB/sec
Copying 1 MB file from storage card 1831 ms 559 KB/sec
Writing 100 of 10 KB files 2489 ms 411 KB/sec
Reading 100 of 10 KB files 449 ms 2.23 MB/sec
Copying 100 of 10 KB files to storage card 3131 ms 327 KB/sec
Copying 100 of 10 KB files from storage card 8187 ms 125 KB/sec
Directory listing: 2000 files 247 ms 8.11 thousands of files/sec
MHoefler said:
Nice work, Brazilian Joe! But the real question is: do these tweaks affect the real performance of the BA? I mean do you notice any improvements during normal work (with all today plug-ins, etc.)
That's actually all that matters, because benchmark results don't necessarily reflect the real-life performance.
If you say the difference is noticable (I mean "really" noticable), the we all should give it a try. But if it's only a benchmark improvement, I think we should not mess with the settings...
Regards,
Martin
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It affects the real / overall / daily use performance. Try it out
Yeah, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. and benchmarks are statistics, right?
Benchmarks do not directly translate in real world performance, but if they are done properly, there is some meaning to them, and you can expect that the performance displayed at the benchmarks will be reflected in your daily usage.
And I started those benchmarks by going the other way round:
I found some settings, tweaked them, noticed a difference, and only then I started benchmarking to back up my subjective feeling with hard numbers.
let's see how the benchmarking saga unfolds...
Blame me stupid ... installed SPB Bench in RamDisk at first .. damn ...
Rebenching now, but can confirm that with the Settings fomr BJ an mine mixed to the way you use your device in daily usage this runs veeerrry smooth ... )
MasterMerlin said:
Just working on my Settings also ..
Okay .. here is what I am doing .. atm I am only switching values in the FATFS:
BufferSize:16 or 8 try around
CacheSize:0 (System reserves Memory) or 16384
DataCacheSize: 4096
will do more testing .. but smaller buffers seems to be much faster ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have tried setting only
BufferSize:16
but after I lowered it from 256 to 16 if always froze my machine. had to hard reset to get it back to a useable state...
Code:
[HKLM\System\StorageManager\FATFS]
"BufferSize"=(decimal 16) (old:256)
"CacheSize"=(decimal 0) (old:4096)
"DataCacheSize"=(decimal 0) (old:4096)
"DLL"="fatfsd.dll"
"EnableCache"=dword:00000001
"EnableCache4Way"=dword:00000001 (old: didn't exist)
"EnableCacheWarm"=dword:00000001
"FatCacheSize"= (decimal 0) (old:1024)
results in
Write 1 MB file 2635 ms 389 KB/sec 49%
Read 1 MB file 301 ms 3.32 MB/sec 18%
Copy 1 MB file 1799 ms 569 KB/sec 72%
Write 10 KB x 100 files 7197 ms 142 KB/sec 25%
Read 10 KB x 100 files 641 ms 1.56 MB/sec 25%
Copy 10 KB x 100 files 5892 ms 174 KB/sec 37%
Directory list of 2000 files 1844 ms 1.08 thousands of files/sec 1%
seems that the smaller buffer helps while reading
Brazilian Joe said:
I have tried setting only
BufferSize:16
but after I lowered it from 256 to 16 if always froze my machine. had to hard reset to get it back to a useable state...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats weird .. since you reinstalled it fresh .. mine is up since yesterday, running Pocketbreeze and some other Today Plugins while using the Benchmark ..
Have you tweaked some other infos before in another section?
MasterMerlin said:
Brazilian Joe said:
I have tried setting only
BufferSize:16
but after I lowered it from 256 to 16 if always froze my machine. had to hard reset to get it back to a useable state...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats weird .. since you reinstalled it fresh .. mine is up since yesterday, running Pocketbreeze and some other Today Plugins while using the Benchmark ..
Have you tweaked some other infos before in another section?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no, I only changed that and nothing else. I think the system was starved because of the small buffer size. I had PocketBreeze, iLauncher and PocketWeather on my today screen.
EDIT. trying the Chache = 0 settings and see how they perform, without messing with the buffer
EDIT2:
MasterMerlin, looks like there is some fluctuation in the file results. can you re-run the benchmark more than one time? I am not getting a result like your 'Read 1 MB file ~300 ms'. maybe the result in that specific run was better than average?
EDIT3: definitely, buffers=16 is not friendly at least to PocketBreeze. Other apps might gasp on it either. At the moment I installed PB, my machine froze. There goes another hard reset...
PocketBreeze and PocketWeather are on my Today Screen too. Will rerun the Bench now .. went to bed yesterday
EDIT:
You are right Brazilian Joe. The Benchmark seems to fluctuate much.
Retried with:
Write 1 MB file 2566
Read 1 MB file 433 ms
Copy 1 MB file 2042 ms
Write 10 KB x 100 files 6405 ms
Read 10 KB x 100 files 913 ms
Copy 10 KB x 100 files 6292 ms
Directory list of 2000 files 2593 ms
Will test around your Settings with other Buffers and some more reg-changes and rerun another Test...since this great ROM should stay stable and speedy ...
MHoefler said:
Nice work, Brazilian Joe! But the real question is: do these tweaks affect the real performance of the BA? I mean do you notice any improvements during normal work (with all today plug-ins, etc.)
That's actually all that matters, because benchmark results don't necessarily reflect the real-life performance.
If you say the difference is noticable (I mean "really" noticable), the we all should give it a try. But if it's only a benchmark improvement, I think we should not mess with the settings...
Regards,
Martin
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its should make a difference... I've try it before I post the rom, but I dont test it much, but it seems our Brazilian Joe hv test it more then me.. so give it a try... I'll post a cab for it as requested.
ps: I dont think it safe to try this tweak on v1.2 or lower, but try it anyway...
If we use Brazilian Joe tweaks and later want to later go back to original configuration - how do we do that?
Manually?
or
Uninstall the cab?
hasanj4 said:
If we use Brazilian Joe tweaks and later want to later go back to original configuration - how do we do that?
Manually?
or
Uninstall the cab?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hmm, I think if u use it in v1.3 its safe, but this is the revert back .CAB
btw I use Platformxxx.reg method (so its ready for further tweak update from Brazilian Joe and wont erase the reg entry if u uninstall it)
Just install this cab overwrite or uninstall the previous version, both way is ok. this .CAB will revert back registry value to its original value.
read my post i te main thread, these cache tweaks shouldnt be used on thier own, the speed is shortlived.
Midget_1990 said:
read my post i te main thread, these cache tweaks shouldnt be used on thier own, the speed is shortlived.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is that like the upgraded Axim/4700 filesys.exe performance issues? I didn't knew our machines were affected by it too.
Anyway, I'll keep the tweaks and see if the machine slows down over time.
Brazilian Joe said:
MasterMerlin said:
Brazilian Joe said:
I have tried setting only
BufferSize:16
but after I lowered it from 256 to 16 if always froze my machine. had to hard reset to get it back to a useable state...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats weird .. since you reinstalled it fresh .. mine is up since yesterday, running Pocketbreeze and some other Today Plugins while using the Benchmark ..
Have you tweaked some other infos before in another section?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no, I only changed that and nothing else. I think the system was starved because of the small buffer size. I had PocketBreeze, iLauncher and PocketWeather on my today screen.
EDIT. trying the Chache = 0 settings and see how they perform, without messing with the buffer
EDIT2:
MasterMerlin, looks like there is some fluctuation in the file results. can you re-run the benchmark more than one time? I am not getting a result like your 'Read 1 MB file ~300 ms'. maybe the result in that specific run was better than average?
EDIT3: definitely, buffers=16 is not friendly at least to PocketBreeze. Other apps might gasp on it either. At the moment I installed PB, my machine froze. There goes another hard reset...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Joe,
The BA is a strange device, it seems, that it behaves itself in different ways So... It can be, that MasterMerlin is right. I tried the Cache=0 and Buffersize=16 on my BA, and It didn't freeze at all, and It became more speedier than with your settings. I use SPB pplus + diary + weather + time + backup on today (tabbed) + wireless + messaging + device lock on todayscreen.
The device freezes, if you try to raise Your posted setting's values.
I hope i could help a bit.. But I really don't understand why your BA freezes if you set cache to 0 and buffer to 16...
ThExSenatoR said:
Hey Joe,
The BA is a strange device, it seems, that it behaves itself in different ways So... It can be, that MasterMerlin is right. I tried the Cache=0 and Buffersize=16 on my BA, and It didn't freeze at all, and It became more speedier than with your settings. I use SPB pplus + diary + weather + time + backup on today (tabbed) + wireless + messaging + device lock on todayscreen.
The device freezes, if you try to raise Your posted setting's values.
I hope i could help a bit.. But I really don't understand why your BA freezes if you set cache to 0 and buffer to 16...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I told before, SBSH PocketBreeze dislikes this setting. Anyway, I will try setting the caches to 0, but keeping the buffer size and see if it improves. Then I will proceed on halving the buffer until it does not work anymore.
EDIT:
Just to clarify, I use PocketBreeze with iLauncher, ContactBreeze and PocketWeather as tabs inside it.
Anyway, the buffers = 16 setting looked like it was working for me, but when I installed PocketBeeze it froze...
/EDIT
On the subject of benchmark fluctuation, I think the cause is the same thing which also causes video to skip, some system process might be taking up too much processing.
Since our hardware is not built for WM5, we might be suffering the same problems that the Axim/4700 users have. Do we have a filesys.exe throttler? If we don't, is there a way to do it? It would be so much easier to find the guilty process if we had a XP-style task manager, which displayed the amount of cpu time each process is taking... Anyone knows of any?

Class 0 Text message App?

Hello,
Do you guys know if there is an app that allows to send class 0 sms aka flash SMS?
There is only 1 app on the market that does it but it FC all the time.
On T-Mobile in the UK you can do this by just starting a regular SMS with two exclamation marks. I'm not sure if this would work on other networks or in other countries but try sending...
Code:
!!Test Message
as an SMS to yourself and see what happens.
I juste tried your trick but it doesn't work here (Orange FR).
According to the 3GPP TS 23.038 spec:
Code:
General Data Coding indication
Bits 5..0 indicate the following:
Bit 5, if set to 0, indicates the text is uncompressed
Bit 5, if set to 1, indicates the text is compressed using the compression algorithm defined in 3GPP TS 23.042 [13]
Bit 4, if set to 0, indicates that bits 1 to 0 are reserved and have no message class meaning
Bit 4, if set to 1, indicates that bits 1 to 0 have a message class meaning::
Bit 1 Bit 0 Message Class
0 0 Class 0
0 1 Class 1 Default meaning: ME-specific.
1 0 Class 2 (U)SIM specific message
1 1 Class 3 Default meaning: TE specific (see 3GPP TS 27.005 [8])
Is it possible to modify thoses parameters in Android?
bump !bump !
Such applications exist for Symbian and Winmobile.
Unfortunately not for android.
I wish I had the skills to create such an app
HushSMS for WinMo
SysSMS for symbian
also looking for a app for sending Ping SMS too (or Type 0)
Flash sms
or
Advanced SMS Sender can do that on android
Flash sms it best

Huge problems with GPS!

Hello everyone.
Recently i've been having problems using GPS. Whenever i am firing up Maps / GPS Status / whatever app that uses GPS, it just won't get a GPS fix.
I also checked logcat output, and all i get is:
D/libgps ( 142): qct_gps_set_position_mode = 1, fix_frequency = 1
D/libgps ( 142): qct_gps_start
D/GpsLocationProvider( 142): Acquiring wakelock
D/libgps ( 142): PDSM_PD_EVENT_COMM_BEGIN
D/libgps ( 142): calling sAGpsStatusCallback GPS_REQUEST_AGPS_DATA_CONN
D/libgps ( 142): qct_agps_data_conn_open: internet.t-mobile
D/libgps ( 142): DeferredActionThread calling send_pdsm_atl_post_event PDSM_AT
L_EVENT_OPEN_SUCCESS internet.t-mobile
D/NetworkLocationProvider( 142): addListener(): apps.maps
W/InputManagerService( 142): Window already focused, ignoring focus gain of: co
[email protected]
D/libgps ( 142): PDSM_PD_EVENT_COMM_CONNECTED
D/libgps ( 142): PDSM_PD_EVENT_GPS_BEGIN
D/libgps ( 142): PDSM_PD_EVENT_COMM_DONE
D/libgps ( 142): calling sAGpsStatusCallback GPS_RELEASE_AGPS_DATA_CONN
D/libgps ( 142): qct_agps_data_conn_closed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No errors here at all. However i also checked dmesg, as i guess that a hardware related issue would show here first:
<4>[ 714.924957] msm_i2c msm_i2c.0: Warning bus was busy (2)
<4>[ 723.965454] msm_i2c msm_i2c.0: Warning bus was busy (1)
<4>[ 725.955017] msm_i2c msm_i2c.0: Warning bus was busy (2)
<4>[ 733.675537] msm_i2c msm_i2c.0: Warning bus was busy (3)
<4>[ 738.955352] msm_i2c msm_i2c.0: Warning bus was busy (1)
<4>[ 754.585418] msm_i2c msm_i2c.0: Warning bus was busy (3)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
does anyone know what these errors mean? are they related to GPS?
I tried all of this on SuperD and FastTest, with and without default kernel (using 780MHz kernel usually)
However it made no difference.
I also tried to wipe, no luck.
And at last i took a look at the baseband, which differed by one letter from the one here:
http://code.google.com/p/sapphire-port-dream/
So i flashed that one, but, no luck!
This is seriously driving me crazy since i am not wanting to roll back to stock and send the phone in Please help!

Wireless dongle Driver compilation

as per a request by potissimus, i have some drivers i was hoping someone could compile for me.
The drivers are for USB-wireless 3g adapters that I'm trying to get working on the Touchpad through ICS (cm9).
Thanks
can anyone assist?
So i've spent the last few days playing with building from CM9 from source and the kernel too.
I've managed to compile both successfully or so it seems.
upon pushing them to the touchpad and attempting to insmod, i get the error "Device or resource busy"
i have done a power off/reboot and hasnt had any effect. I cant find any other information to explain why it wont let me load them now.
i performed a modinfo check on both sierra.ko and sierra_net.ko, and received these details back:
description: USB Driver for Sierra Wireless USB modems
author: Kevin Lloyd, Elina Pasheva, Matthew Safar, Rory Filer
srcversion: C58D9EB6D295B757AA65F22
depends:
vermagic: 2.6.35-palm-tenderloin SMP preempt mod_unload ARMv7
parm: nmea:NMEA streaming (bool)
parm: debugebug messages (bool)
i checked this against the included cifs.ko that is standard in the CM9 build and got:
version: 1.64
description: VFS to access servers complying with the SNIA CIFS Specification e.g. Samba and Windows
license: GPL
author: Steve French <[email protected]>
srcversion: 3E08663B86EDD76112AB79C
depends:
vermagic: 2.6.35-palm-tenderloin SMP preempt mod_unload ARMv7
parm: CIFSMaxBufSize:Network buffer size (not including header). Default: 16384 Range: 8192 to 130048 (int)
parm: cifs_min_rcv:Network buffers in pool. Default: 4 Range: 1 to 64 (int)
parm: cifs_min_small:Small network buffers in pool. Default: 30 Range: 2 to 256 (int)
parm: cifs_max_pending:Simultaneous requests to server. Default: 50 Range: 2 to 256 (int)
so it looks to have compiled correctly and against the correct kernel version.
I've attached the 2 .ko files. hopefully someone may be able to see what is going on there.
The dongle will not function properly without an OTG Y-cable connection to AC. Unfortunately, our microUSB ports cannot generate enough power to feed USB devices properly without it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Hope someone helps this guy out
Sent from my cm_tenderloin using XDA
MikeyCriggz said:
The dongle will not function properly without an OTG Y-cable connection to AC. Unfortunately, our microUSB ports cannot generate enough power to feed USB devices properly without it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am aware that the touchpad will not generate power for the dongle, hence why i would be using OTG & Y cables. i should have mentioned that.
I have had no luck with this, and with my limited knowledge cannot take it any further. I should note however that i have begun researching building the kernel from source and there appears to be some form of sierra driver embedded or available, however may not be compiled in the CM9 kernel. If anyone has any idea of how to "activate" additional drivers available in the source that'd be greatly appreciated.
Hi,
Have you tried to manualy "power on" your dongle interface?
You can do this with this command line on your terminal emulator :
Code:
ip link set "interface_name" up
please put a guide with full advanced
thanks

Bluetooth Amazon FireTV Stick Remote

I have made some progress in finding out whats wrong but no idea how to fix it.
After installing evtest I get the following:
Code:
OpenELEC:~ # cat /proc/bus/input/devices
I: Bus=0005 Vendor=1949 Product=0404 Version=011b
N: Name="Amazon Fire TV Remote"
P: Phys=00:1a:7d:da:71:13
S: Sysfs=/devices/platform/bcm2708_usb/usb1/1-1/1-1.3/1-1.3:1.0/bluetooth/hci0/hci0:71/0005:1949:0404.0001/input/input0
U: Uniq=a0:02:dc:e0:f9:d7
H: Handlers=kbd event0
B: PROP=0
B: EV=10001b
B: KEY=10000 1110 40000800 1681 0 0 0
B: ABS=100 0
B: MSC=10
Code:
OpenELEC:~ # evtest /dev/input/event0
Input driver version is 1.0.1
Input device ID: bus 0x5 vendor 0x1949 product 0x404 version 0x11b
Input device name: "Amazon Fire TV Remote"
Supported events:
Event type 0 (EV_SYN)
Event type 1 (EV_KEY)
Event code 96 (KEY_KPENTER)
Event code 103 (KEY_UP)
Event code 105 (KEY_LEFT)
Event code 106 (KEY_RIGHT)
Event code 108 (KEY_DOWN)
Event code 139 (KEY_MENU)
Event code 158 (KEY_BACK)
Event code 164 (KEY_PLAYPAUSE)
Event code 168 (KEY_REWIND)
Event code 172 (KEY_HOMEPAGE)
Event code 208 (KEY_FASTFORWARD)
Event type 3 (EV_ABS)
Event code 40 (ABS_MISC)
Value 0
Min 0
Max 255
Event type 4 (EV_MSC)
Event code 4 (MSC_SCAN)
Properties:
Property type 20 (EV_REP)
Property code 0 (REP_DELAY)
Value 1000
Property code 1 (REP_PERIOD)
Value 33
Testing ... (interrupt to exit)
***********************************************
This device is grabbed by another process.
No events are available to evtest while the
other grab is active.
In most cases, this is caused by an X driver,
try VT-switching and re-run evtest again.
***********************************************
So something is capturing the input and not letting it go through. Any idea how to fix this?
Just an update. Connected a Bluetooth keyboard and that worked fine and gave the same evtest output saying something else was grabbing the input which would mean that's not the problem with the Amazon remote.
Again, any help is welcomed!
This has been bugging me for the last day or two as well; and to be honest - still is.
The below will work but just seems "wrong" to have to use eventlircd for this...
/storage/.config/eventlircd.d/aftvsremote.evmap
(copy /etc/eventlircd.d to /storage/.config/eventlircd.d)
Code:
KEY_KPENTER = KEY_OK
KEY_UP = KEY_UP
KEY_LEFT = KEY_LEFT
KEY_RIGHT = KEY_RIGHT
KEY_DOWN = KEY_DOWN
KEY_MENU = KEY_EPG
KEY_BACK = KEY_EXIT
KEY_PLAYPAUSE = KEY_PLAY
KEY_REWIND = KEY_REWIND
KEY_HOMEPAGE = KEY_MEDIA
KEY_FASTFORWARD = KEY_FASTFORWARD
/storage/.config/autostart.sh
Bind mount because I'm too lazy to rebuild the openelec squashfs image
Code:
mount --bind /storage/.config/eventlircd.d/ /etc/eventlircd.d/
/storage/.config/udev.rules.d/99-eventlircd.rules
Code:
SUBSYSTEMS=="bluetooth", GOTO="begin-bluetooth"
GOTO="end-bluetooth"
LABEL="begin-bluetooth"
ATTRS{name}=="Amazon Fire TV Remote", \
ENV{eventlircd_enable}="true", \
ENV{eventlircd_evmap}="aftvsremote.evmap"
LABEL="end-bluetooth"
Thank you so much!!! I got a chance to enter the code today and it works perfectly! I had to repair after the initial reboot but it keeps pairing after that for all other reboots. I hope they put this into openelec from here on out.
Again thanks!

Categories

Resources