CPU performance

[PeterSt]

Ha ! Actually, I think you just saved my day !!

Ok, this is maybe more talking to myself, but it is also informative I think;

I have been working the whole day to find out whay may cause those stupid peaks, while from the program point of view there can't be peaks. Look below for an example of KS Special Mode 22 samples latency (into a 128 samples buffer).
Also, the types of nice graphs vary with all kind of things you can vary with yourself. Now :

At analysing everything by means of cpu usage in the program itself, it is my conclusion from there that the amount of cpu used can not be registered at all times, thus, asking for it in a fixed interval, won't show updates other then at *another* fixed interval which is outside my view. And, I already notice that what we see from the cpu graph by the OS (like below picture) in fact shows the same. So :
The OS is (very) periodically too busy with other things, to update "my" cpu usage.

... But not so with an Atom processor ...

At least, that is what I now think;
The problem you had (with the Wallpaper and stuff) in fact is a very constant loop, and your Atom shows this as a constant loop. In my case though it shows as spikes, similar to the graph below. But it ain't spiking !

And thus, what we see (for the "normal" Intel) just is not reality. It also explains why in between the peaks a virtual "no cpu usage" shows, which to my believe is sheer impossible with 22 samples latency to begin with. Nope, it is the average we should watch for, and the peaks are just "fake". In total they will be correct, but not what we see in real time.

I hope this solves a kind of psychologial problem for myself, because I can't stand those peaks, them clearly implying that I'm doing something wrong (like the Wallpaper thing was such a real life example of it).

Peter

[listening]

The cpu chips are more complex systems than ever before. From my point of view it is not possible to "reengineer" the behaviour. It could be interesting (but costly ) to build up a chip with the components only which are necessary for computing the datastream. But that is another project 

Georg

[listening]

Just one additional question : how do you manage to have such a low memory useage ? I mean, XXHighEnd may just manage to use that few, but where's your OS necessities ? or is the Atom enforcing this ?

I did things as usual - disabling everthing what is not necessary. The only unusual I did was disabling hyperthreading.

Georg

[Calibrator]

An observation here if I may that could be clouding some judgements.

The amplitudes of these peaks we are seeing are influenced by the refresh rate of the graph. Go to the "view" menu, and drop refresh rate to low , assumming you were in "standard" by default, and notice the peaks drop considerably. Increase the rate to "fast" and observe the peaks are now more intense.

The mere act of having the CPU Usage graph active is causing those spikes as has now been surmised. Could it be implied that not having the CPU monitor running at all would flatten the peaks even more ? There is good cause to suggest that may be so.

Use the graphs as an indicative tool for sure, but the absense ( or presense ) of clicks and plops should be your final indicator that things are OK or not.

Cheers,

Russ

[PeterSt]

Hahaha ... but no ... My graph already is on the highest spead. And after a day of peeking into everything I really know a bit about the internals (ok, I think).

Btw, what also is funny to observe, is that when at last the cpu data is updated (how much is used is written to the specific area(s)), there are buffer errors. 100% consistent behaviour. The time when it's done is also 100% consistent, as is the graph of it (from lump to lump is several seconds).
But ! don't let yourself confuse by this remark, because the logging of it all (which plainly happened per sample here) takes so much away that buffer errors become a standard.

But thank you for your observations Russ, and to a certain extend you are right of course.

For your fun (etc.) below a part of a list I created dozens of. Each line shows a moment of new cpu usage data. The right column shows how many samples have passed since. As you can see this is a very fixed interval to begin with (the 44032 entries). And try to keep in mind how small of a time unit 1 sample represents, and thus how accurately (in the time domain) the cpu data is updated. Now also see the large numbers; this represents the time the cpu data was *not* updated. Suddenly it takes a 100 times longer before it's done and as you can see this spans some 2 seconds. Exactly the span between the top of the peaks ...
Because of the buffer errors occur in the exact same period as the cpu data won't get updated, it tells me that the OS thinks it is high time to at last do some tasks for other clients, after some 2 seconds (watch out, this is another 2 seconds as those mentioned before) of spending time on "me".

Btw, if you grasp this a bit, you now may understand better how in Vista the services automatically were shut down, which ... now I think of it, never happened in W7. Pitty.

Peter


PS: I learned a lot of this, and maybe ... just maybe there's a new Mode in my head.

[Calibrator]

hehe ... I did write in a "get out" clause that it "might" cloud judgements 

Without the benefit of your extra logging features it is hard to judge exactly what is happening behind the scenes, but your logging extract had shed another light on that now. Interesting.

I've attached a CPU usage graph of my system FYI and comparison. I also get those regularly intervalled spikes as you can see.

Setting as per in signature.

Cheers,

Russ ( loves waking up to new versions )