Re: N900 got slow and unresponsive
 

OK, I removed both patches and maxcpu and it seems to work alright, but...
When I try to boot other kernel than omap in multiboot, the only thing I get is the Nokia logo. And its only kernel reflash that helps

Re: N900 got slow and unresponsive
 

This is true, but if you don't understand how they're doing what they claim to be doing it's best to avoid the shinny. All the glitters is not gold. Also, if the author refuses (or can't) explain how it's working, it's snake-oil at best. Karam's patches fall into that category so far.

I believe I was that "bonehead". And it wasn't totally proven to be maxcpu. Five people on the thread were complaining about speed issues. All five also happen to have speedpatch installed. Seems like an awful big coincidence to me.

One of them decided to do the right thing: re-flash and test after each install. He "determined" it was maxcpu, but only after installing speedpatch again, which as we both know tweeks config parameters. He "tested" speedpatch by uninstalling it, but we both know that does nothing to undo what's been done.

That doesn't tell me it's not speedpatch, but rather that there's a conflict with using speedpatch and maxcpu. Since lots of others are using maxcpu without issue without speedpatch, I'm thinking either/both of them are probably not worth the gamble. If he would be willing, I would love for him to re-flash, and just install maxcpu, without speedpatch. That would clarify that it was in fact just that app. My bet: It's something speedpatch is doing to the system, and maxcpu is just amplifying the problem.

Personally, I prefer swapolube for one simple reason: At any given time, I can hit one button and restore every tweak done back to the system stock values. If you add that to your "patch" set, a way to fully uninstall and undo/restore all configurations your patch touches back to stock defaults, and then we'll see what's really going on. Until then, you're tweaking things you don't understand and/or refuse to explain, and making promises that more often than not fail.

Want me to stop suggesting against it? Make it so an uninstall replaces all the values you're touched, and explain how what you're tweaking improves anything at all. (Basically, reply with answers to freemangordon's post below.) Do that, and I'll be happy to tell people go ahead and try it. But without knowing what it's doing, and no way to undo what it's done? It's like playing Russian roulette, and I will advise against it.

Re: N900 got slow and unresponsive
 

well that's a good point
however the last update was on 3 jan

and the creation if speedpatch was a result of testing
perhaps i have no huge expert to explain how it does that
but according to speedpatch testers .. it appeared that it does something

and i wouldn't take a chance a create a new thread (and it was my first thread i ever create) if i wasn't sure that cgroup patch does something
if you have noticed that the first versions were just scripts
not in devel

but after i got many requests uploading it devel .. had to do it

as for battery patch

you can add
3- renice processes
4- changes minfreq to 720 when a call is received (which will improve the response)
5- uses conservative module (still not proven it's the best)

i think that's why it's called extras-devel ?

well it doesn't require it .. it's just compatible with it
the thing about KP49 is that it made it possible to OC with maxfreq 900mhz with vdd1 enbaled

my older versions had 750 as max with vdd1 enabled
now the are 805mhz with vdd1 with KP49 only
but if the user has an older version
then it will use 750 as max

well here :

in offline mode,device with KP49, underclock profile 125-600 has with vfs 10 and reniced processes

xx>mA with batterypatch than without it
of course the hard ware cannot be edited .. but N900 requires quite less battery life than without batterypatch

in that one overclock profile with conservative module
well got nothing to say about that but tests showed me it improves continues time of using

may i ask you what kind of problem batterypatch may cause ?
ok i got that speedpatch can cause problems (although not with me)

thank you

Re: N900 got slow and unresponsive
 

Which proves once again mine and many others point that you have absolutely no clue what your so called speedpatch is doing. And TBH what irritates me most is that you still refuse to google for linux kernel cgroups and educate yourself. Description is several pages long, go read it. Computer science , software development, you name it, is not alchemy or black magic, it is that - science and while six sense helps, one needs knowledge too.

I still fail to see any hard values on current and/or battery life.

Go read your own thread.

Re: N900 got slow and unresponsive
 

for me i have 0 expert
i have good six sense
i have horrible english

i use speedpatch and batterypatch
i find them good
i have no problems
now everyone
shut it
this will last forever

who don't like them > don't use them
who likes them > use them

#facepalm#

*legand of the seeker* i love this movie

edit / i will go to sleep now
edit2 / i love you all :)

Re: N900 got slow and unresponsive
 

Are these scripts also that bad: http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...68&postcount=1
and
OptimizeN900?

Re: N900 got slow and unresponsive
 

yes they are bad
an update in batterypatch included them then they were removed because they cause more battery drain than they save

and optimizen900 (not sure about it) because i don't use it

Re: N900 got slow and unresponsive
 

one more question: why the titan's ideal profile has 500 as min freq? Won't it consume more power?
EDIT: it'll sit longer on idle. but why will it save power?

Re: N900 got slow and unresponsive
 

To answer that there are two things:

1> All multi-frequency processors have a performance curve, where they perform best. For the N900 processor, that curve has been mapped a few times, and every time it's a bell curve with a peek right around 500Mhz. It makes sense that this is the case, since it's sold as a 500Mhz processor. That's what TI optimized everything for. So 500Mhz is the most energy efficient when it comes to doing any real solid number crunching. (Clearly sleep mode, or 0Mhz, is more efficient when it comes to not doing number crunching. :rolleyes: )

2> Imagine you have a background process that wakes up twice a minute to check some values. Let's say it runs for a quarter of a second at 500Mhz. That's not enough to trigger the system to go up to the next frequency. It wakes up from 0, runs, and the system goes back to sleep. That same process at 125Mhz would run the processor for up to 4 times longer, and probably trigger a move up to 250Mhz. Lets say it triggers the jump at one half second, the 125Mhz/250Mhz version would take 3/4 of a seconds. (250 would take a half second, where 125 would take 1... Half the work is done in .5 seconds at 125, the other half is done in .25 second at 250) After an hour:

500 Mhz = 30 seconds of run time, 59.5 minutes of sleep time.
125/250 Mhz = 1.5 minutes of run time, 58.5 minutes of sleep time.

After a day? The 500Mhz system has run for 12 minutes, where the 125Mhz system has run for 37 minutes. Which one used less energy, assuming 0 mhz takes close to 0 power (when compared to any running state)? Now add up all the little apps running time slices in the background that wake up on occasion to do work. That translates into a reasonable amount (5% to 10%) of battery savings over a day. That's called the "race to idle" effect.

Between those two, choosing your most effective speed for your base speed actually causes less energy use. Thus why most people here who have good battery life are using a 500-X clocking method, be that 500-600 for non-overclockers, or 500-850/900/1100 for overclockers.

Btw: You may note that overclocking does in fact mean you're sliding down the other side of that bell curve for energy efficiency. The more you overclock, the more your battery drain can be when you're using the device for long-term number crunching!

Re: N900 got slow and unresponsive
 

Hello
right after reflash I installed a lot of apps and the n900 became much laggier. usable but laggierl
Which one of these may cause it: (list from fapman)