FORUMS

Analysis & Opinion

Top Forum Discussions

[STOCK KERNEL][NOV20] guestekrnL v2.2.1 | stable, smooth [VIBRO- &RAMHACK] [AROMA]

1,991 posts
Thanks Meter: 5,167
 
By Stefan Gündhör, Senior Member on 10th February 2012, 03:06 AM
Post Reply Subscribe to Thread Email Thread
28th May 2012, 01:43 PM |#1331  
Ferrum Master's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Rīga
Thanks Meter: 278
 
More
Stefan... the kernel name. You're a troll...
 
 
28th May 2012, 01:46 PM |#1332  
Stefan Gündhör's Avatar
OP Senior Member
Flag Austria
Thanks Meter: 5,167
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferrum Master

Stefan... the kernel name. You're a troll...

Just a randomly chosen cryptic name bro Needed to spice up the kernel a bit
28th May 2012, 01:47 PM |#1333  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 813
 
More
LOL

Can you say me why the kernel has worse scrolling with OC (1.3GHz) than with 1GHz?
28th May 2012, 01:52 PM |#1334  
Ferrum Master's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Rīga
Thanks Meter: 278
 
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flix123

LOL

Can you say me why the kernel has worse scrolling with OC (1.3GHz) than with 1GHz?

Actually you're right... (screwing the good mood )

The second core kick in freq too high?
28th May 2012, 02:03 PM |#1335  
Stefan Gündhör's Avatar
OP Senior Member
Flag Austria
Thanks Meter: 5,167
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flix123

LOL

Can you say me why the kernel has worse scrolling with OC (1.3GHz) than with 1GHz?

I don't have this myself using the rebuilt version of latest kernel, srolling like butter @1.3 GHz.
I can only think of maybe the voltage @1.3 GHz is a bit too low resulting in a laggier behavior. I chose the voltage so there won't be freezes but maybe kernel gets less smoother when voltage is low? Dunno. Try the rebuilt version or try overvolting @1.3 ghz a bit or play around with second core settings (later activation per example, because imo phone scrolls better when 1 core is active than when both are evern if this would be ridiculous if it is true)
The Following User Says Thank You to Stefan Gündhör For This Useful Post: [ View ]
28th May 2012, 03:50 PM |#1336  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 813
 
More
It doesn't help. In every case, scrolling at 1.3GHz s more like with V20q sources at 800MHz--> worse than without OC.

The crazy thing is, that @1.3GHz it's smoother with disabled 2nd core!
28th May 2012, 03:56 PM |#1337  
Stefan Gündhör's Avatar
OP Senior Member
Flag Austria
Thanks Meter: 5,167
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flix123

It doesn't help. In every case, scrolling at 1.3GHz s more like with V20q sources at 800MHz--> worse than without OC.

The crazy thing is, that @1.3GHz it's smoother with disabled 2nd core!

Okay so you got the same impression as me
Quote:

because imo phone scrolls better when 1 core is active than when both are even if this would be ridiculous if it is true

I don't think this is something I can influence in general with changing the kernel source. Without auto-secondcore-limits second core will be used earlier/more often when phone is overclocked.
You can try enabling auto-secondcore-limits or manually set a higher activation freq for second core and higher activation-time when phone is OC'd.
28th May 2012, 03:59 PM |#1338  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 813
 
More
It's the same effect like when you use framework with disabled scrolling cache with a V10 based kernel.

This issue isn't very important for me, because I usually don't use OC. I just wonder what causes this issue.

Later I'll try to mod the kernel and build an own one.
28th May 2012, 04:02 PM |#1339  
Stefan Gündhör's Avatar
OP Senior Member
Flag Austria
Thanks Meter: 5,167
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flix123

Later I'll try to mod the kernel and build an own one.

Yeah do that I restructured the guide, so it will be even easier to follow
28th May 2012, 04:02 PM |#1340  
Bir92's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Berlin
Thanks Meter: 65
 
More
Thanks Stefan

But Im a bit confused I flashed your Kernel yesterday and the size is 4.309 bytes and today I downloaded another one and the size is 4.329 bytes ...does this mean I already flashed the new one yesterday?
Thanks

Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA
28th May 2012, 04:07 PM |#1341  
Stefan Gündhör's Avatar
OP Senior Member
Flag Austria
Thanks Meter: 5,167
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bir92

Thanks Stefan

But Im a bit confused I flashed your Kernel yesterday and the size is 4.309 bytes and today I downloaded another one and the size is 4.329 bytes ...does this mean I already flashed the new one yesterday?
Thanks

Sent from my LG-P990 using XDA

Hi m8, there is no basic difference in yesterday's/today's releases, just the version from today has been built using the new virtual machine I offer for download for building own kernels, and somehow this new build has magically became smoother than the one from yesterday!

Quote:

Changelog:
May 28, 2012 -- rebuild of guestekrnL SR99R100.1PI.1337 using a different VM -- rebuilt version is smoother than the build from yesterday (May27)!

So the most actual one is the one with MD5 checksum 8bac4f8f4e23a00bd355fc60a59f0a13

However yesterday's build isn't any worse, it's just not as smooth as today's build!
Last edited by Stefan Gündhör; 28th May 2012 at 09:59 PM.

Read More
Post Reply Subscribe to Thread
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes