[KERNEL] [GPL][GN] franco.Kernel r378 -> 4.2.2 | r364 -> 4.2 | r300 -> 4.1

irminsul · 28th January 2013, 07:49 AM

Re: [KERNEL][GPL][GN] franco.Kernel-r361 -> 4.2 | r300 -> 4.1

Quote:

Originally Posted by LibertyMonger

I have never had a reboot or sod using Franco especially the latest one. Never while running Xylon ROM and now over a month on Baked BB7.

It isn't a hard reboot though, when you check your uptime the phone doesn't see the reboot. Just the glowing X bootscreen.
SOD doesn't happen on Franco, luckily because my phone is sensitive for it

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Fenvarien · 28th January 2013, 08:40 AM

AW: [KERNEL][GPL][GN] franco.Kernel-r361 -> 4.2 | r300 -> 4.1

The final winner tunables are running perfectly stable here on the GNex of my wife and on my own GNex.
No problems with 192/1228

I used a lot of gaming, listening to music, web browsing with Chrome, Tapatalk and Repligo Reader (PDFs). Performance and battery life are just amazing, no stability issues at all.

marcocsh · 28th January 2013, 10:28 AM

Re: [KERNEL][GPL][GN] franco.Kernel-r361 -> 4.2 | r300 -> 4.1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenvarien

The final winner tunables are running perfectly stable here on the GNex of my wife and on my own GNex.
No problems with 192/1228

I used a lot of gaming, listening to music, web browsing with Chrome, Tapatalk and Repligo Reader (PDFs). Performance and battery life are just amazing, no stability issues at all.

They are prefect except that I need to set read ahead buffer to 128 for listening to FLACs.:thumbup:

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app

eng.stk · 28th January 2013, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by osm0sis

This is for the N7 but a similar test was done for the GN a few months back:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...aRkltRmc#gid=6

The GN results were similar. IO speed increases to a point with higher read_ahead_kb buffer values, then decreases again.
If I recall correctly, 2048 was found to be the sweet spot both times.

Edit: Wrong graph.. I'll try and find the one with 3072, etc.

Here we go, it's from M-Kernel, but results are similar:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...qSmwzUFE#gid=6

Yes, 1024 is the safe used by most users (and kernel devs), 2048 if I recall, as you say is "the point".

RevengeFNF · 28th January 2013, 11:52 AM

Benchmarks are one thing, real usage is another one.
With 2048 i feel my phone being sluggish in transitions. The best way to test that is scrolling the widget section very fast. Its simple a no go for me.

After that i tested some other values, and for now i found that 256 gives me the best transition in the Widget Section.

irminsul · 28th January 2013, 12:49 PM

Re: [KERNEL][GPL][GN] franco.Kernel-r361 -> 4.2 | r300 -> 4.1

I can confirm that, with 2048 my phone gets laggy. With 256 it's faster in transitions. It's just how you use your phone what's good for you

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

supernova_00 · 28th January 2013, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by osm0sis

Most people I've seen comment say that 95/85 is slightly laggier than 90/80, so I'm with Fen, I'd like to see if we can tell the difference with:

a) 15/90/0.7/45/15/80
b) 15/90/0.7/45/30/80

Hmm.. but you're right, maybe lowering the timer_rate to 15 allows us to use 95/85... okay, so:

c) 15/95/0.7/45/15/85

I didn't know exactly which comment to quote since there have been dozens on comments with different tunables but why the just from 30 to 15? I haven't seen anything in between like 20 and 25. We might as well get it perfect instead of just dividing the numbers in half each time for a test, I've seen every other number be tested in increments of "5" except this one.

Fenvarien · 28th January 2013, 01:39 PM

AW: [KERNEL][GPL][GN] franco.Kernel-r361 -> 4.2 | r300 -> 4.1

Quote:

Originally Posted by irminsul

I can confirm that, with 2048 my phone gets laggy. With 256 it's faster in transitions. It's just how you use your phone what's good for you

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

That's true, it depends from personal usage. Until Read Ahead becomes configurable via f.KU I use an init.d script to set it to my taste

stevensoaj · 28th January 2013, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevengeFNF

Benchmarks are one thing, real usage is another one.
With 2048 i feel my phone being sluggish in transitions. The best way to test that is scrolling the widget section very fast. Its simple a no go for me.

After that i tested some other values, and for now i found that 256 gives me the best transition in the Widget Section.

I'm so glad I saw your post. I have been annoyed by the lag when scrolling vertically through the widgets on nova launcher for quite some time. 256 buffer cleared things right up! With no noticeable draw backs so far. Can someone who knows more than me explain the benefits of higher buffer sizes?