Core Parking!

[Virgorising]

one I like: http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php

Wow! This one looks even better! THANK YOU!!!!

 

[Virgorising]

You don't need any apps to do this.

Just set minimum at 100% in Power options, advanced settings in Control panel.

No cores will be parked.

It's BURPO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :biggrin:

Truly? This is true???? I think I am now ready to turn of the core parking.

Pretty sure I will not, right after, hear sirens.:ninja:

Pretty sure I set power settings on the middle one. Cause it felt safe. I am going back there now!

No, l I just went to look and bullet is in the top one: BALANCED plan. Cause it felt safe, and it felt I would njot stress anything unfairly. I guess I thought it was in the middle cause it said balanced. lol

 

[toyota]

Well, it would be nice to at least have the CPU's clock down when idle. Kinda overkill to turn that off entirely.

you referring to Burpo's post? if so then even at 100% minimum the cpu still clocks down at idle.

 

[Virgorising]

you referring to Burpo's post? if so then even at 100% minimum the cpu still clocks down at idle.

K....NOW, I am confused again.

 

[toyota]

K....NOW, I am confused again.

why? dropping to idle speeds and core parking are 2 different things.

 

[Virgorising]

Well, it would be nice to at least have the CPU's clock down when idle. Kinda overkill to turn that off entirely.

OK, see, something is holding me back from going forth the the disabling of the core parking.....and the above nails it. It kinda feel like overkill.

I think I first need to dermine if my parked ones are stuck.

 

[ChronoReverse]

you referring to Burpo's post? if so then even at 100% minimum the cpu still clocks down at idle.

It might go into a lower C-state maybe (I haven't bother to confirm that), but it 100% will not throttle down clock speeds if you set the minimum state to 100%.

That's the entire purpose of that setting.


For example, I just tested this right now on my i7-4770k running on stock clocks. With minimum set to 5%, the clock will drop to 800MHz on idle. With it set to 100%, it actually stays at max frequency the whole time.

[edit]Looks like C-states still work as normal though

 

[Rubycon]

Made a huge difference on our MP Xeon boxes. You can run the WinRAR benchmark and see the difference. Scores in Win7/Server 2008R2 are the same as 8/2012 respectively.

 

[toyota]

It might go into a lower C-state maybe (I haven't bother to confirm that), but it 100% will not throttle down clock speeds if you set the minimum state to 100%.

That's the entire purpose of that setting.


For example, I just tested this right now on my i7-4770k running on stock clocks. With minimum set to 5%, the clock will drop to 800MHz on idle. With it set to 100%, it actually stays at max frequency the whole time.

I have mine at 100% minimum and I am sitting at my Sandy's idle speed of 1.6. same thing on my E8500 as it was always set to 100% but idles at 2.0 just like it should.

 

[mindbomb]

core parking prevents threads from being on the same core when other cores are available. you should leave it on.

example - suppose you have a core i7 quad core with hyperthreading. an application that utilizes 4 threads can run on the 4 cores, or because of hyperthreading, they can run on just the first 2 cores (cause with hyperthreading, they can do 4 threads) with reduced performance. Core parking forces one thread per cpu when cpu usage is low, so these problems are prevented.

 

[SPBHM]

a few months back I've downloaded a .reg which added the core parking option to the power settings of my Windows 8, alongside with the minimum processor state...
it definitely works, and you can change whenever you want by changing the percentage and hitting apply...

previously I already had it turned off by using some command (I can't remember exactly what, I did it more than a year ago back when I installed win 8)

 

[Idontcare]

Just walked in and saw this.....well, that makes me feel better, but I am still afraid to turn it off, cause I remain unclear re the downside.
i.e., if I turn it off and no cores get parked ever, will the cores have higher temps than now? Cause now, they are mostly around 28C

Right now, apart from cores getting stuck in park in W7 (OMG!!!!!), my feeling is this thing is in place for maybe good reasons?

When I can, what I think I should do, is do some video converting.....the only thing I do(and not often) that is CPU intensive. During that, I would look again and see if the same 4 cores are parked. If they are, that would be messed us, and maybe sign the parked ones are stuck, yes? I will use that app to turn the whole parking thing off.

But it will still creep me out a little.

Pls comment! I just do not wanna do anything to mess anything up.
Remember, late last nite was the first time I ever even heard of this thing!!!

Thanks as always for any feedback.

Virgorising, some of my prior posts on the topic of (and issues therein) "core parking" might help put you at ease. I will link them here for you perchance you have the time and desire to peruse them

The issue of "core parking" when using "processor affinity" in Task Manager

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=35408462&post35408462

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34813419&post34813419

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34404101&post34404101

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34117056&post34117056

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34077467&postcount=618

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=33897568&post33897568

:hmm: Now that I've assembled my list...me thinks perhaps I have been a bit too active in campaigning against core parking!?

I'm really not that much against it, I just see it as a good idea that has yet to be properly and robustly implemented.

Don't worry about disabling core parking. Your CPU will still power-gate the core and drop the power consumption to near zero when the core is idle.

Disabling core parking simply prevents windows from getting in the middle of it all and screwing it up.

Consider the point that if Microsoft really knew what it was doing when it comes to managing the power-savings features of your CPU then the CPU manufacturers would not need to ingrain these features at the hardware level from the outset.

Entrust your power saving features to the skilled hands of the CPU designers at AMD and Intel, not to the questionably bureaucratic programming hierarchy that prevails at Microsoft (yielding such gems as Win98, WinME, Vista, and Win8 ).

 

[Burpo]

 

[Virgorising]

Virgorising, some of my prior posts on the topic of (and issues therein) "core parking" might help put you at ease. I will link them here for you perchance you have the time and desire to peruse them

The issue of "core parking" when using "processor affinity" in Task Manager

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=35408462&post35408462

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34813419&post34813419

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34404101&post34404101

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34117056&post34117056

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34077467&postcount=618

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=33897568&post33897568

:hmm: Now that I've assembled my list...me thinks perhaps I have been a bit too active in campaigning against core parking!?

I'm really not that much against it, I just see it as a good idea that has yet to be properly and robustly implemented.

Don't worry about disabling core parking. Your CPU will still power-gate the core and drop the power consumption to near zero when the core is idle.

Disabling core parking simply prevents windows from getting in the middle of it all and screwing it up.

Consider the point that if Microsoft really knew what it was doing when it comes to managing the power-savings features of your CPU then the CPU manufacturers would not need to ingrain these features at the hardware level from the outset.

Entrust your power saving features to the skilled hands of the CPU designers at AMD and Intel, not to the questionably bureaucratic programming hierarchy that prevails at Microsoft (yielding such gems as Win98, WinME, Vista, and Win8 ).

I am, at this moment, reminded yet again of my blessing of intuitive acuity...which, in this chronology has compelled me to wait to disable core parking until something even half the caliber of your offering above (I appreciate not only it is dense with properly earned data, but also the time you took).....finally came along.

The above, and you, the author, are, perhaps my reward for having hung in with something akin to a small herd of Ebola virus ridden malcontents humans in a thread of mine in The Garage Forum.

I am SOOOOO grateful.:wub: Also nourished by your elegance, given, right now, here, I am starved for such.

AND, your inclusion of W8 in yr list illustrating the astonishing downside of MS, did NOT ESCAPE ME.

 

[Virgorising]

Late need for clarification!

Still, before going forth with the disabling of the parking, I just did what I said I planned to: started a video converion, it went going at around 260fps....and I then went into Resource Mgr to see what, under this load my cores were doing and if the four which had been parked still are.

So, cause I could not get it all---all the cores on the right vertical

-- in one screenie, I just made two.

I seems yes, even now during conversion I have parked cores, but in the parked ones, there appears to be some activity.

Now, I am newly confused despite all the wordclass if sometimes disparate data helpers here have brought. Remember, I only just learned about core parking altogether and have no personal references/experience on my own as a measure for "normal.

I do not understand this at all, if, under this, for me big CPU load that they are still parked is normal, if it means they are stuck in parked or what ever else.

Thanks again in advance for illuminating feedback!

 

[Idontcare]

It is easy to test, simply run the program that disables core parking and then re-run your tests.

If the results show improvement, then leave core parking disabled.

If the results show no tangible improvement (or, possibly, a lowering in performance) then simply reuse the same program to re-enable core parking.

Either way you will have your answer in a matter of minutes.

 

[Virgorising]

It is easy to test, simply run the program that disables core parking and then re-run your tests.

If the results show improvement, then leave core parking disabled.

If the results show no tangible improvement (or, possibly, a lowering in performance) then simply reuse the same program to re-enable core parking.

Either way you will have your answer in a matter of minutes.

OK, I will do that. I am now, just worried that the parked ones are stuck...having learned about that creepy here. That is why I put up the screenies, cause under big CPU load, if only for me, vid conversion, those which were parked remained parked. This could also reflect, for the chip, conversion ain no big deal. That is the part I am not clear on. I now get it's a matter of deciding which should control this: intel or MS. I tend to agree with he who made the case for trusing intel over MS, my internal jury is still not clear on that.

I am also not clear, if I disable parking, test, leave disabled, if I should keep Turbo and Hyperthreading on or not.

Thank U.

 

[Virgorising]

Now that, is fully realized, gorgeous thing!!! Yr system truly is off the hook amazing.

 

[Virgorising]

Just read this: CPU Parking is actually done quite aggressively. On a dual-core HyperThreaded Core i5 (4 logical cores), I have seen cores parked even as total CPU utilization approaches 50%. Windows seems fairly smart, parking the HyperThreaded/fake cores first.

Above addresses dual core, but am sure the principle above is same for quad.

Perhaps, in my case, the cores which show up parked and remained so when I did first conversion test are the hyperthreaded fake cores. If so, that does not sound bad or unreasonable.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I have mine at 100% minimum and I am sitting at my Sandy's idle speed of 1.6. same thing on my E8500 as it was always set to 100% but idles at 2.0 just like it should.

It must be getting overridden by another setting.

5%

100%

 

[Virgorising]

???????????????????????????

Can someone pls explain this?

I use my original app to turn off core parking, looked in Resource Monitor, and 1,3,5 & 7 still show up PARKED. the app says they are unparked now, but Windows says nothing has changed.

What does that mean???

 

[mindbomb]

you have to restart your computer.

anyway, again, I find no issues with core parking. It essentially is just a fail-safe to prevent scheduling problems with hyperthreading.

 

[Virgorising]

you have to restart your computer.

O! I wondered about that. Thanks so much! When I am nervous my brains leaves my head.
_________________________________________
Update: Brilliant. I knew I should reboot, this this thing just scares me altogether. Now I will commence new conversion test.

 

[Virgorising]

OK, it is way too early to get clear handle on what the disabling has done, vid conversion was at slightly lower fps, CPU usage was higher, at around 40%, I liked in Task Mgr, the load was evenly distributed, but that reflects a dearth of understanding of this thing.

But, I see my temps are already a bit higher. Not dramatically, but just a bit. I will keep parking off for a day, and see what I pick up on re performance, thermals, etc.

The data on the net on this are all over the place, and most people who comment seem very experienced and savvy. and, the debates among those most tech savvy have metrics I do not understand, never having seen them before, forget, others say some of the metrics are moot.

I almost wish I had a game to test with something more CPU intense than video encoding.

 

[krose]

The way I do it is in the registry. Open regedit, navigate to HKEY_Local_Machine > System > ControlSet001 > Control > Power. In the right hand window there is a key CoreParkingDisabled. Default is 0 (off), change it to 1 (on). Repeat for ControlSet002 and CurrentControlSet. Exit regedit and reboot.