Database Info

WM6 and Performance Tweaks?

Most of the recent WM6 rom chefs have been advocating making NO performance tweaks, in favor of keeping as large a RAM pool as possible. As I rarely need 30mb to run a program, I am happy to give up what I don't need if it will help get data back and forth to the SD card and so on faster. Has anyone got thoughts or data about this? I don't own a benchmarking program so I can't check it out directly. I have been making all the tweaks anyway, but does it matter?
Thanks for your thoughts!
Ed
X-Plore 1.1
IPL/SPL 3.08
GSM 2.69.11

edhaas said:
Most of the recent WM6 rom chefs have been advocating making NO performance tweaks, in favor of keeping as large a RAM pool as possible. As I rarely need 30mb to run a program, I am happy to give up what I don't need if it will help get data back and forth to the SD card and so on faster. Has anyone got thoughts or data about this? I don't own a benchmarking program so I can't check it out directly. I have been making all the tweaks anyway, but does it matter?
Thanks for your thoughts!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree completely! I'd like to see a WM6 ROM with all the performance tweaks and 8 MB page pool. I know jwzg is working on an 8MB pp ROM based on Faria's up coming Vanilla WM6 ROM.
Check out this thread for more info http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=299584&page=10

Thanks for the link. I really don't understand the drive for smaller and smaller page pools either...

Some Answers!
OK, here is my contribution to the WM6 literature...
I am running battery status 1.04 beta 3 with the following settings in all tests: cpu speed 247, cpu scalar min 143, boost 278. set on wakeup, remember last speed. My base setup is as per my signature. I ran SK Tools v 3.1.1.0 in demo mode. I also removed the HKLM\init launch100 key in both cases.
All tweaks, No tweaks
Integer (moves/25us) 134.0864, 134.4001
Floating point MWIPS 3.490, 3.489
RAM Access speed index 345, 328
Draw bitmaps speed index 503, 522
Main storage (w) KB/sec 607.78, 612.14
Main storage (r) KB/sec 3670.25, 3469.23
Storage card (w) KB/sec 412.76, 423.11
Storage card (r) KB/sec 3353.71, ! 1119.13
As you can see, the major difference is in the storage card read speed. This led me to retest using only the SD card speed tweak, and no others. Surprisingly, the result was unchanged from using no tweaks! So, likely there is some interaction with the other file system tweaks that is involved. (See the wiki-WM5 performance tweaks). At some point maybe I'll try to pin it down further.
Regards,
Ed
BTW: Sorry for the poor formatting, for some reason the extra white space between columns is being suppressed in the post.

When I was using NotTooSmart's ROM, it had some performance tweaks. I don't have a benchmark prog but it was definitely much faster. I would say it's comparable to when I had it overclocked to 234-247MHz...
I believe what made the most difference was the System Cache... I lost ~10MB of RAM but the ROM was flying... Start up was scary though... I think it went <2MB w/ the progs I had...
edhaas said:
Thanks for the link. I really don't understand the drive for smaller and smaller page pools either...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A lot of people tend to be RAM fanatics... that's probably what drove cooks to have smaller and smaller page pools... Another thing is people and numbers.. many tend to feel the bigger, the better.. High IPL/SPL, High Radio, High OS, High Storage, High RAM.. I think you get the picture.. =P

Update on tweaks
I think I'm near the max. I maxed out the file cache, and filter cache, kept the SD cache at 256 and re-ran the benchmarks. Slightly higher numbers all round, but a dramatic increase in SD card read rate, now up to 6.5 mb/sec! I would expect this would speed loading those big programs and files from the SD card, and is 6 times the "stock" speed!.
Regards,

There was a post a few weeks ago (I think) where someone did comparisons with playing with PagePools and the performance. They compared 4MB, 6MB, 8MB, and 12MB pagepools. As I recall there was very little difference between 12MB and 8MB performance. I think 6MB was the worst of the 4.
Again this was all from memory, but I just remember after reading that, I no longer was that concerned about the differenence in performance over the added extra memory available by dropping to 8MB.

Performance tweaks
Actually, in thinking about the issue, it occurs to me that the standard benchmarks we are using (SPB Tools) don't measure things that would likely be changed by a change in page pool. CPU calculations, memory access speeds, would not change by changing the page pool or buffer sizes. The only measurement which would change would be the speed of swapping programs and data in and out of memory (by suppressing the actual need to do so) or accessing the memory card. However, these things *would* impact on "real life" apparent speed of the device in activation of programs and quick response times.
Thoughts?

Forgive my obvious ignorance... This is the closest thread I have found for my search, "SD card speed tweak" so can you please help me? point me to the tweak to speed up my SD card?
thanx in advance!

Re: Speed tweaks
Sure, If you want awesome numbers on SK Tools SD read benchmark, (particularly when combined with overclocking) make these registry changes:
HKLM>Drivers>SDCARD>ClientDrivers>Class>MMC_Class:
Change BlockTransferSize to 256 decimal
HKLM>Drivers>SDCARD>ClientDrivers>Class>SDMemory_Class:
Change BlockTransferSize to 256 decimal
HKLM>System>StorageManager>FATFS:
Change CacheSize to 4096, 8192, or 16384 decimal
HKLM>System>StorageManager>Filters>freplxfilt:
Change ReplStoreCacheSize to 4096, 8192, or 16384 decimal
The larger the numbers the faster the benchmark. However, some of the other benchmarks run slighly slower, and I'm not sure I see significant "real life" improvements in responsiveness. I'd be interested in your impressions. One thing to watch out for, particularly when using the 16384 settings, is that available memory can drop to "dangerously" low levels on start up from soft reboot. If you're using batterystatus you can monitor this. As long as you stay above 2mg or so at the minimum you're ok, as the situation resolves after the start up routines finish. If you do go below, I've had the screen blank temporarily and hang for a moment, but it eventually booted fine anyway.
Have fun!

Thank you for your prompt and courteous answer!! I am still learning this PocketPC stuff. Someday I hope to be able to contribute. It already seems faster!

email tweaks
is there anyway to make my pics in emails auto download?
(instead of having to click "download pics" every time...)
and to create shortcuts to my text messages and other applications, how can i do that?

b.mann said:
is there anyway to make my pics in emails auto download?
(instead of having to click "download pics" every time...)
and to create shortcuts to my text messages and other applications, how can i do that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This question is slightly offtopic, but I'll answer you anyways.
Go to the email account you want to change:
Menu/Tools/Options/Choose The Account (it will take you into email setup):
Next/Next/Next/Options/Next/Next/Download size limit (drop down menu - choose what you want)/Finish

Hi,
I saw the benchmarking results that you guys posted and the difference between "with tweaks" and "without tweaks". The numbers sure show a difference with the benchmarking results but what i'd like to ask and what i'd really like to know is - have you noticed a significant difference in actual/real life performance on ur wizard? Was it obviously faster?
I mean, for me and IMHO, i'm not much of a fan of "benchmark" results and all that unless I actually see a "real" difference in speed when i use my PPC. I don't think i'll go for the performance tweaks if i'll loose 10+MB of RAM and am only able to see "benchmark" results being better instead of overall actual performance. That's why i'd like to get ur inputs on this whole performance tweaks thing...is there a noticeable difference in speed? (not just benchmark data)

WM 6.1 Tweaks
Hi,
Even the thread is quite old,
after some time of using WM6 and 6.1 and test meny mor etweaks, there I post some of them who i found usefull.
TKS to all contributors form xda or another.
1. Stop 3G services: settings\phone\ HSDPA must be disabled; RAT set to GSM; the internt still accesible trought GPRS for the most operators
Result in: less batery consumption 1-2 days stdby increase to 3-4 days
reduce blockings and wake-up problems
2. Disable Power management for SD card: use poket toolman or others and uncheck Enable Power Mgmt for SD card; or use regedit and change to
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Drivers\SDCARD\ClientDrivers\Class\SDMemory_Class]
“DisablePowerManagement“=dword:00000001
Other option:
Change reg into
[HKLM\System\StorageManager]
“PNPUnloadDelay“=dword:8196
[HKLM\System\StorageManager]
“PNPWaitIODelay“=dword:8196
Note that the 8196 should be entered as a DECIMAL value. The HEXADECIMAL (HEX) equivalent is 0×00002004.
Result in: Less blocking and sd diseaparing fix or slow upload sd when wake-up
More consumption on batery, about 10% more, but with tweak 1 still OK
3. Uncheck today timeout: settings\items\ uncheck Today timeout
Result in: less delay when a phone call income o r standby resume
4. Try to instal the alarm programs and sounds files direct into main memory instead of SD; to avoid sd blocking when standby resume
5. Install .NET Compact Framework 3.5 (last vers) to your device, as:
1. Download .NET Compact Framework 3.5 from Microsoft and save it on your PC.
2. Run the downloaded MSI file and let it install.
3. Connect your device to Activesync/Windows Mobile Device Center and finish the automatically launched installation on your device.
4. Soft reset your device.
5. Open a Registry editor and navigate to HKLM\Software\Microsoft\.NETCompactFramework where you will see two entries for the (now two) existing version references: the old one, which came with your device and the new one you just installed.
6. Change the DWord value of 3.5.7283.00 from 0 to 1 (thus enabling it) and all the other values (i.e.: 2.0.7045.00) from 1 to 0 (thus disabling it/them).
7. Soft reset your device.
Result in: shorter time (gain 0.5 sec) to navigate trough windows menus and buttons actions.
6. Activate lock applet on today menu; Without this function when the phone is in stand-by and a call income the phone delay has about 8-10s to wake-up.
Result in: the wake-up on call is shorter (gain 4-5 sec) than without this lock checked in today settings; somehow WM use this library to pass trowght to wake up.
7. Speed-up the SD card read; tks to edhaas contributor from xda-developers.
Action: increase some SD cache into registry:
a) HKLM>Drivers>SDCARD>ClientDrivers>Class>MMC_Class:
Change BlockTransferSize to 256 decimal
b) HKLM>Drivers>SDCARD>ClientDrivers>Class>SDMemory_Class:
Change BlockTransferSize to 256 decimal
c) HKLM>System>StorageManager>FATFS:
Change CacheSize to 4096, 8192, or 16384 decimal
d) HKLM>System>StorageManager>Filters>freplxfilt:
Change ReplStoreCacheSize to 4096, 8192, or 16384 decimal (16384 is dangeours high, some blank screen at startup)
a), b) settings are regulary set by default to 256; c), d) is by default to 0, so change-it and see if gain some perf.
All of them has tested and works fine.
Apply and now I found my i-mate ultimate 6150 OK, instead of first phone impression when I blame-it.

Analysing RAM Usage on the device [DevHealth] - How to Change PagePool size ?

-DevHealth.exe
To get a summary of where the RAM is going on the device, you can use the comprehensive DevHealth application to create a snapshot of the memory usage on the device at any point. DevHealth.exe is available in the Windows Mobile 6 Adaptation Kit and you can run it several ways.
To run DevHealth using SD/MMC card (recommended method)
Create a folder named "2577" on an SD/MMC card.
Rename DevHealth.exe to autorun.exe and copy it to "2577" folder.
Insert the SD/MMC card into the device. This automatically runs autorun.exe from the card, which is really the DevHealth application.
To run DevHealth using ActiveSync or another method
Copy DevHealth.exe to \Windows\Start Menu folder on the device.
Run DevHealth from Start menu.
The device displays a wait cursor while DevHealth.exe is running. At the end of the process, you will have a log file named mem_N.txt, where N is the run number starting with 1 and the highest N is the latest run. The log is saved on the SD\MMC card if it is present, otherwise the log file is saved in the "\" directory of the device.
Now guys, with this tool, we can view the available Page Pool for RAM. On my vox it is 6 MB. How to change this value to say 10 MB ??
Any ideas??
Regards,
Chandan

page pool
I'd like to know how to change the pagepool, too.
On my wizard the larger pagepool made my device far more responsive.

pagepool of 10MB will not make any changes in performance.
it will just waste your ROM space.
6 MB is more than enough for Vox. Many people have found 4MB to be giving similar performance. So 6MB is a safe bet.
If you do increase it to 10MB you will be wasting 4MB of ROM.

PagePool uses RAM space and not ROM space. Yes, 6 MB is the sweet spot as suggested by Microsoft.

pagepool
So can i conclude from your comments that this has been tried?
Again, on my wizard i used a 16(!) mb pagepool with a very minimal rom. This gave me a far more responsive device. In fact, my wizard is a lot more responsive then most "high performance" wm devices such as kaisers.
Since the vox has a similar (or actually the same) processor, i was expecting similar performance.
If there was a tool to change the pagepool, as there is for the wizard, i'd be happy to find out for myself and of course post the results to this forum.
Thank you for your answers so far.

/proc/meminfo shows total memory as 99040KB

/proc/meminfo on my G1 shows total memory as 99040KB. I thought the G1 had 192MB of SDRAM. Clearly I must be missing something here. The free command shows the same as well.

Good question... with that said where is our ROM at too? I don't see 256MB of ROM... by my calculations I am missing about 50MB but I could be wrong.

neoobs said:
Good question... with that said where is our ROM at too? I don't see 256MB of ROM... by my calculations I am missing about 50MB but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The fact that they advertised it has having 256MB of ROM seems strange to me, since the internal memory that comes closest to that (268,400KB - when adding up the total sizes of the /dev /sqlite_stmt_journals /system /data and /cache partitions - is actually 262MB) is definitely not Read-Only-Memory. And it wouldn't appear to be 256MB, unless that /sqlite_stmt_journals is a subdivision of another partition like the /system/modules and /system/xbin (which I obviously left out of my calculations), that would bring it down to 264,304KB or 258MB - pretty close.
But that is still not ROM, so I don't know what they were getting at with that.. Unless I missed a memo and ROM doesn't just mean Read-Only-Memory any more...

I was confused about the use of "ROM" too. Apparently, it's just to differentiate between memory and storage. The /data partition is definitely not read-only.

techvd said:
/proc/meminfo on my G1 shows total memory as 99040KB. I thought the G1 had 192MB of SDRAM. Clearly I must be missing something here. The free command shows the same as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that the rest of the memory is reserver for the framebuffer and video textures etc.

The question was already answered by Hackborn on the mailing list.
https://groups.google.com/group/android-platform/browse_thread/thread/adb2fa9946275b73

i dont think that thread responds to "where the hell are the 100 MB remaining"
i dont believe "radio firmware" + "graphic framebuffers for shadows" + "etc" is eating 100 Mb of memory. I dont believe and in that forum they dont explain the numbers.
windows XP, with 800x600 x 65.000 colors, is able to run with just 64 Mb of ram, and only 200 Mhz. That would give as 120 Mb Free. to run games like diablo 2, baldur's gate (i played baldur's gate with my pentium mmx 200mhz)
This phone is superior than my Pentium 200mhz who had 64 ram. why this phone cant do the same with 3x times memory x 3x times cpu?
Why windows Xp (a real operating system) is running with a lot less resources than android ??? where is our 192 Mb of ram??

a 200mhz Pentium >>>> 384 mhz ARM processor

*) first of all, a pentium is faster than the arm we use, especially for things like gaming.
a PC is optimized for performance, an embedded architecture is optimzied for efficiency (especially regarding power consumption)
*) your PC has a graphiccard that has its own memory.
*) android = linux = real OS.
why do these rants always pop up whenever embedded systems are discussed.
it was the same with the gp2x / pandora scene, the same in every windows mobile forum, etc.
people, get a clue. attend a course about systems architecture or read a book or two...

Take a look here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=482228
Same discussion

you saw i called windows xp a real os and you started freaking out, lol !
*) cpu is 528 Mhz clocked down to 384 (google says: to conserve battery!!!!) , so they stole us speed and memory. Performance vs eficiency? i dont buy it. Its all the same running the same kernel.
*) my graphic card sucked balls, old ati radeon 128 with 16mb ram. So, 16 mb doesnt mean a **** in the middle of the 100MB we are missing.
*) android = java = resources devour, when i discover android = java i was disapointed, the real operating system running on my phone is the good kernel+debian armel which i had to host in memory card instead of internal memory because lately google is acting like microsoft. and im starting to think android will be as ****y as windows is.
yea i readed a pair of books and i know how to count, where is my Mhz and where is my Memory?
greetings

New (more accurate) Benchmark? Post Scores!

So I found a "new" benchmarking app. PassMark Perfomance Test Beta.
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.passmark.pt_mobile
PassMark is a developer of some PC benchmarks, so I believe them to be reputable programmers. Anyways, it has a slew of testing "stuff" (for lack of a better word), similar to CF-benchmark, but is more well rounded instead of CPU-centered. I would like to see if kernels/roms/etc have any impact on performance in this benchmark.
Here are my scores:
Samsung Droid Charge
GummyCharged 1.9.1
imoseyon 13.3 kernel, voodoo lagfix enabled
100-1400MhZ; I/O-Deadline; Governor: conservative
Loopy Smoothness, V6 Supercharger, 3G Turbocharger
32GB Samsung Class 2 SD
CPU: 1590
Integer Math: 44.8 MOps/Sec
Floating Point Math: 57.3 MOps/Sec
Find Prime Numbers: 24.8 thousand/sec
Random String Sort: 400 thousand/sec
Data Encryption: 232.1 Kbytes/sec
Data Compression: 195.5 Kbytes/sec
Disk: 6843
Internal Storage Write: 73.3 Mbytes/Sec
Internal Storage Read: 23.4 Mbytes/Sec
External Storage Write: 76.9 Mbytes/Sec
External Storage Read: 13.2 Mbytes/Sec
Memory: 1175
Memory Write: 189.7 Mbytes/Sec
Memory Read: 495.2 Mbytes/Sec
2D Graphics: 1646
Solid Vectors: 3515.2 Vectors/Sec
Transparent Vectors: 2567.6 Vectors/Sec
Complex Vectors: 82.4 Vectors/Sec
Image Rendering: 589.8 Images/Sec
Image Filters: 54.3 Filters/Sec
3D Graphics: 2076
Simple: 57 FPS
Complex: 56.8 FPS
Combined Score: 13330
I also have scores from my Galaxy Tab 7 if anyone would like to see them, but I don't have time to post right now.

Seems good, I'll post back in a day or two with my scores, calibrating teh batturiez right now.

Non-oc imnuts kernel on humble 1.51
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

Arrow New (more accurate) Benchmark? Post Scores!
Please delete

kvswim said:
So I found a "new" benchmarking app. PassMark Perfomance Test Beta.
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.passmark.pt_mobile
PassMark is a developer of some PC benchmarks, so I believe them to be reputable programmers. Anyways, it has a slew of testing "stuff" (for lack of a better word), similar to CF-benchmark, but is more well rounded instead of CPU-centered. I would like to see if kernels/roms/etc have any impact on performance in this benchmark.
Here are my scores:
Samsung Droid Charge
GummyCharged 1.9.1
imoseyon 13.3 kernel, voodoo lagfix enabled
100-1400MhZ; I/O-Deadline; Governor: conservative
Loopy Smoothness, V6 Supercharger, 3G Turbocharger
32GB Samsung Class 2 SD
CPU: 1590
Integer Math: 44.8 MOps/Sec
Floating Point Math: 57.3 MOps/Sec
Find Prime Numbers: 24.8 thousand/sec
Random String Sort: 400 thousand/sec
Data Encryption: 232.1 Kbytes/sec
Data Compression: 195.5 Kbytes/sec
Disk: 6843
Internal Storage Write: 73.3 Mbytes/Sec
Internal Storage Read: 23.4 Mbytes/Sec
External Storage Write: 76.9 Mbytes/Sec
External Storage Read: 13.2 Mbytes/Sec
Memory: 1175
Memory Write: 189.7 Mbytes/Sec
Memory Read: 495.2 Mbytes/Sec
2D Graphics: 1646
Solid Vectors: 3515.2 Vectors/Sec
Transparent Vectors: 2567.6 Vectors/Sec
Complex Vectors: 82.4 Vectors/Sec
Image Rendering: 589.8 Images/Sec
Image Filters: 54.3 Filters/Sec
3D Graphics: 2076
Simple: 57 FPS
Complex: 56.8 FPS
Combined Score: 13330
MORE INFORMATION YES, BUT TAKES LIKE 3 TIMES LONGER TO COMPLETE...
My scores are almost the same as the ( ^^^^^^ ) post #3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Won't let me install My charge is greyed out on the market page. Running GummyGBE

hoppermi said:
Won't let me install My charge is greyed out on the market page. Running GummyGBE
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Strange. Have you tried clearing market data?
Sent from my Droid Charge running GummyFroyo 1.9.1

Imoseyon kernel 1 ghz. Humble 1.51.
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

Benchmarks, suggestions and researchs for kernel optimization

Benchmarks, suggestions and researchs for kernel optimization​
Hello guys,
these days I have done several comparative benchmarks of what can be achieved, at least in terms of performance, applying the existing optimization options or particular compiler flags and also the main kernel memory allocators.
This, I hope, is only the beginning...
I'd like that this thread could become a place where developers, experienced or not, can share their benchmark results, knowledge, suggestions on possible improvements, patches, etc designed to improve performance and / or stability of the kernel.
Inside the next posts, you can find the conducted benchmark results.
Thanks for your attention
PS. Sorry for my bad english...

Kernel Optimization Benchmarks​
These are the results of the comparative benchmarks of the performance results that can be achieved using the different kernel optimization options (-Os, -O2, -O3), using cpu and floating point tuning (eg -march=armv7-a -mtune=cortex-a8 -mfpu=neon) and other additional compilation flags.
For these tests I've used different kernels based on Arco's 3.0.60 kernel sources and built using the same toolchain (optimized for generic Cortex-A cpu):
- pure kernel built selecting -Os optimization
- pure kernel built selecting -O2 optimization
- slighty modified kernel built selecting -O3 optimization (only two simple changes to add -O3 optimization option inside Makefile and init/Kconfig)
- slighty modified kernel built selecting -O3 optimization and with the following additional compilation flags inside Makefile
Code:
...
OPTIMIZATION_FLAGS = -march=armv7-a -mtune=cortex-a8 -mfpu=neon \
-ffast-math -fsingle-precision-constant \
-fgcse-lm -fgcse-sm -fsched-spec-load -fforce-addr
CFLAGS_MODULE = $(OPTIMIZATION_FLAGS)
AFLAGS_MODULE = $(OPTIMIZATION_FLAGS)
LDFLAGS_MODULE =
CFLAGS_KERNEL = $(OPTIMIZATION_FLAGS)
AFLAGS_KERNEL = $(OPTIMIZATION_FLAGS)
...
and
Code:
...
ifdef CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Os
endif
ifdef CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_DEFAULT
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -O2
endif
ifdef CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_MORE
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -O3 -fmodulo-sched -fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves -fno-tree-vectorize
endif
ifdef CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FAST
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Ofast
endif
...
The kernel has not been overclocked, I used the default min and max cpu frequencies (245 Mhz - 1401 Mhz) with Performance cpu governor and Noop I/O scheduler.
To perform each kernel benchmark, I made at least 3 test runs for each of the following tools:
- CF-Bench developed by XDA Developer Chainfire
- Antutu Benchmark
Benchmark final results
(the image is uploaded on Media Fire, if you can't see it, could be due to your proxy configuration)​
You can find more detailed results (ods, xlsx and pdf format) and screenshots inside the following Media Fire folder: Results Folder​
Conclusion:
As you can see, if compared with each other, -O2 optimization and -O3 optimization with additional flags give the best results in terms of performance, expecially using CF-Bench, but the differences are relatively small.
Thus, we can conclude by saying that the optimization flags above, do not do miracles, at least in terms of performance...
Memory Allocators Benchmarks​
These are the results of the comparative benchmarks of the performance results that can be achieved selecting one of the different kernel memory allocators (SLUB, SLAB, SLOB and SLQB).
For these tests I've used different builds of the above descripted kernel (slighty modified kernel built selecting -O3 optimization and with the additional compilation flags):
- a build configured selecting the default SLUB memory allocator (the unqueued slab allocator V6)
- a build configured selecting the SLAB memory allocator (old and deprecated)
- a build configured selecting the SLOB memory allocator (a simpler memory allocator suitable for embedded devices with low memory)
- a build configured selecting the SLQB memory allocator (I modified the kernel sources to add it)
The kernel has not been overclocked, I used the default min and max cpu frequencies (245 Mhz - 1401 Mhz) with Performance cpu governor and Noop I/O scheduler.
To perform each kernel benchmark, I made at least 3 test runs for each of the following tools:
- CF-Bench developed by XDA Developer Chainfire
- Antutu Benchmark
Benchmark final results
(the image is uploaded on Media Fire, if you can't see it, could be due to your proxy configuration)​
You can find more detailed results (ods, xlsx and pdf format) and screenshots inside the following Media Fire folder:
Results Folder​
Conclusion:
In this case, if compared with each other, SLUB memory allocator (which is the default one) and SLQB memory allocator give the best results in terms of performance. The differences between these two are relatively small.
Patch:
If you want to add the SLQB memory allocator inside your JB kernel sources, you can use the following patch
SLQB_memory_allocator.patch​
After downloading it inside your kernel sources folder:
Code:
[COLOR="Navy"]Show the changes inside the patch[/COLOR]
[B]git apply --stat SLQB_memory_allocator.patch[/B]
[COLOR="Navy"]Check if the patch could cause conflicts or other problems[/COLOR]
[B]git apply --check SLQB_memory_allocator.patch[/B]
[COLOR="Navy"]If all is ok, apply the patch[/COLOR]
[B]git am --signoff SLQB_memory_allocator.patch[/B]

Additional IO Scheduler Benchmarks​
These are the results of the comparative benchmarks of the performance results that can be achieved selecting some of the additional IO scheduler we can find on many custom kernels.
I8150 - Samsung Galaxy W - ROW and SIO I/O schedulers comparison (Made by Hadidjapri)
These benchmarks have been made on I8150 by Hadidjapri.
For each I/O scheduler, he made 4 test runs using CF-Bench and setting the default min and max cpu frequencies (245 Mhz - 1024 Mhz) and the default SLUB memory allocator.
Benchmark final results
(the image is uploaded on Media Fire, if you can't see it, could be due to your proxy configuration)​
I9001 - Samsung Galaxy S Plus - ROW, SIO and V(R) I/O schedulers comparison
For each I/O scheduler, I made 4 test runs using CF-Bench and setting Performance cpu governor with the default min and max cpu frequencies (245 Mhz - 1401 Mhz) and the default SLUB memory allocator.
Benchmark final results
(the images are uploaded on Media Fire, if you can't see them, could be due to your proxy configuration)​
You can find more detailed results (ods, png and pdf format) inside the following Media Fire folder:
Results Folder​
Conclusion:
For both devices, the best scheduler for I/O operations is SIO.

AW: Benchmarks, suggestions and researchs for kernel optimization
This is huge! Thank you so much!!
Sent from my GT-I9001 using xda app-developers app

WOW. This is extremely interesting! Thank you very much! These are awesome spreadsheets!
I'm going to publish these on my blog if it's okay with you. if it's not, Ill add the link of this XDA topic in Android Articles.
AWESOME. PERIOD
(I always secretly wanted to make spreadsheets like these regarding optimization, but I didn't knew how :silly

from what i see in the O3 optimization, i guess the additional build flags is a must otherwise it's only a fancy stuff which doesn't give anything
i have 2 questions regarding the benchmark
1. which one is more reliable, CF or antutu?
2. do you get large variance when testing for database IO? or is this happens only to me

broodplank1337 said:
WOW. This is extremely interesting! Thank you very much! These are awesome spreadsheets!
I'm going to publish these on my blog if it's okay with you. if it's not, Ill add the link of this XDA topic in Android Articles.
AWESOME. PERIOD
(I always secretly wanted to make spreadsheets like these regarding optimization, but I didn't knew how :silly
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll be really happy if you publish these results inside your blog.
You can also use those spreadsheet as template, you're welcome!
Thank you!

hadidjapri said:
from what i see in the O3 optimization, i guess the additional build flags is a must otherwise it's only a fancy stuff which doesn't give anything
i have 2 questions regarding the benchmark
1. which one is more reliable, CF or antutu?
2. do you get large variance when testing for database IO? or is this happens only to me
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can say that no benchmarking tool is really reliable, I've tried many and I think it isn't actually possible to create or find a tool that always gives similar results on a system that still performs other operations without our control on them...
Antutu Benchmark is the benchmark tool every one of us know and use most, could not miss, though it is not the best in terms of reliability of the results. In particular, the first test should always be discarded because it is very different from the next, so each time I run 4/5 test and considered only the last 3 similar. In addition, I confirm that the database test and SD card tests often vary greatly.
CF-Bench is certainly more reliable and allowed me to make the detailed tests on memory allocation, but doesn't perform benchmarks on database and on the 2d and 3d graphics.

Even as a non-dev its intersting. Nice work

Nice job. Even though i dont own this phone anymore but im still interested of benchmarks. Saw one in antutu and the highest for your phones is about 7000+. The guy (I forgot who) said that he edited something in the build.prop to achieve that high score. Only thing I remember is that he posted the line in the q&a thread.

Juhan Jufri said:
Nice job. Even though i dont own this phone anymore but im still interested of benchmarks. Saw one in antutu and the highest for your phones is about 7000+. The guy (I forgot who) said that he edited something in the build.prop to achieve that high score. Only thing I remember is that he posted the line in the q&a thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
debug.gr.swapinterval=0
which disables the 2d FPS cap, it preforms well on benchmark but sucks in reality, overheating your gpu for nothing, and all animations are bugged

Christopher, where did you get the custom Linaro toolchain optimized for Cortex-A?

R: Benchmarks, suggestions and researchs for kernel optimization
android1234567 said:
Christopher, where did you get the custom Linaro toolchain optimized for Cortex-A?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've built myself, take a look here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2098133
Sent from my GT-I9001 using xda premium

i would like to benchmark ROW and SIO scheduler.
using CF Bench is enough right?

R: Benchmarks, suggestions and researchs for kernel optimization
hadidjapri said:
i would like to benchmark ROW and SIO scheduler.
using CF Bench is enough right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, you don't need to test 2d and 3d graphics, the results shouldn't change. So CF Bench is enough. Let me know your results, if you want...
Sent from my GT-I9001 using xda premium

Christopher83 said:
Yes, you don't need to test 2d and 3d graphics, the results shouldn't change. So CF Bench is enough. Let me know your results, if you want...
Sent from my GT-I9001 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
okay, i'll test it after i finish my class today. maybe 3-4hours later

hmm here's what i got
benchmark procedure and static variable used
1. test run at 1024MHz
2. both scheduler are tested for 4 times/batch
3. test is using CF Bench tool
4. memory allocator used is SLUB
link to pastebin
http://pastebin.com/SPrv1HVG

hadidjapri said:
hmm here's what i got
benchmark procedure and static variable used
1. test run at 1024MHz
2. both scheduler are tested for 4 times/batch
3. test is using CF Bench tool
4. memory allocator used is SLUB
link to pastebin
http://pastebin.com/SPrv1HVG
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you very much Hadidjapri!
I'm adding your benchmark results inside the first page...
Then I'll add my benchmark results too...

Christopher83 said:
Thank you very much Hadidjapri!
I'm adding your benchmark results inside the first page...
Then I'll add my benchmark results too...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, first part completed.
Now, I'll collect my results and prepare the spreadsheet...

Christopher83 said:
Ok, first part completed.
Now, I'll collect my results and prepare the spreadsheet...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you mistype the clock sir. it's 245-1024 not 1401
Sent from my GT-I8150