Linaro Tweaks Speed Up Android, By Up To 100 Percent
Argon writes with an excerpt from Liliputing of interest to Android users: "'The folks behind the Linaro open source software project have put a little time into tweaking Google Android to use the gcc 4.7 toolchain. The result is a version of Android that can perform many tasks between 30 and 100 percent faster than the version of Android Google 4.0 Google currently offers through the AOSP (Android Open Source Project).' Adds Argon: "Note that there are CPU optimizations only since they have only access to binary blobs for GPU code."
that's where the guys with long hair are!
So we're building a faster more powerful android now? I wonder if the end result will be an energy draining old man, or a cocky teenager who's destined to become part of a biological super weapon.
In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
That summary should win a prize for meaningless stats.
Telling us that "many tasks" are "between 30 and 100 percent faster" tells us nothing at all. And that is the meat of the summary!
After digging through the TFA I found Linaro Android Puts Stock Android To Shame on TI Pandaboard (OMAP4430). Which after digging in the comments leads to www.linaro.org/
/.
But the meat of the whole report is contained in this comment from Bernhard Rosenkraenzer which contains some better stats and also links to the toolchains and source code.
After this much manual digging I've realized that I'm getting to jaded for
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
...and what does this do to the battery life? For me, that's more important than the performance of a video game.
is get rid of Java, then you'd see another 100% performance improvement, and it might not suck up all my RAM and pause occasionally.
Not even neutrino's are that fast.
100% faster would mean it takes ZERO time to do something.
The new code might be 50% faster than the old code. (Using old code as time reference).
At the same time the old code would be 100% slower than the new code (Using the new code as the time reference).
But there is no way the new code is 100% faster than the old code, as that requires 0 time for the new code.
This is not nitpicking, this is correctly expressing relative numbers. If things are not expressed correctly they meaningless and unusable.
The cynic in me says that even if it is a simple patch and recompile for existing android devices, we will never see it from any OEMs--it takes away some of the reason to buy the latest shiny.
Here's hoping for the community android rebuilds...
So... they're demonstrating these gains, running a graphical benchmark, which they state is largely CPU bound, and their build has no improvements to the GPU code. Why choose that benchmark? The results are about as clear as mud for me. Why choose a graphical benchmark to test the CPU? Is it running the graphics on the CPU instead of the GPU? Android 4 is designed to offload all UI elements to the GPU, so it's not shocking to me that the code is not optimized for a graphical benchmark. I didn't look at the whole video because it was honestly a little painful, and I'm not a software developer, but the video and TFA mention code fixes relating to an compile flag related to aliasing. Which just makes it sound more and more like they're optimizing graphics operations for the part of the device which is not intended to do those operations in normal use.
Apparently there's some benefit, as the CyanogenMod team is supposedly implementing some of the changes. That's a good sign. Maybe they're actually fixing/optimizing how the systems interact? But there's still no information about what is actually faster and if it matters.
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
So they've tweaked Android so that it will run at speeds slower than or equal to stanard Android. how exactly is this better?
There's also another interesting research project: Porting Android to C# running under mono.
In a benchmark they made (granted, it was focused on generics, where C# has serious performance advantage against Java), the port was about seven times faster.
In the last screen of the benchmark/demo, you see 4 different tests that are each one individually exactly at 60FPS +/1 FPS for the Linaro build and 30FPS +/- 1 for the stock build... Better not question the coincidence and make a slashdot article about that 100% speed improvement !
This just in: hardware tailored OS faster than generic OS.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
I just read the linked article. It doesn't have the information that you quoted? Where did you get it?
All governors add lag to frequency selection since they monitor CPU load on their own timescale and make decisions independently of anything else. CPUFreq is nicely organised and the separation makes it much simpler, but while it retains the same design it will never be able to increase CPU frequency without adding lag to those decisions.
That said, the main difference with the Interactive Governor is that it starts a 30ms timer when a CPU becomes busy. If the CPU is still busy when the 30ms has completed, then the move to max speed happens immediately. In all other situations, it works just like ondemand does. OnDemand works on a slower timescale and requires more compute load to move to top speed since the periodic monitoring is slower. Some SoCs also take quite a long time to stabilise the voltage when you go from lowest operating point to max operating point which will be the largest voltage swing.
If more SoCs had great idle support (both software and hardware - it's not always possible to go lower than WFI in a reasonable amount of time and sometimes drivers are not complete) then the performance governor would not have as much impact on battery life. Things are getting better, but the very poor idle support on the initial Android devices was IMO the reason why Wakelocks and Suspend was so necessary.
Also, scheduler-lead frequency changes can remove almost all of the latency but they cannot be implemented without patching the scheduler and coupling the two subsystems more closely. After all, the scheduler has a pretty good idea how many tasks are ready to run and can also track their historic load profiles. There's a lot of talk at the moment about power-aware scheduling, and better integration of idle, load balancing and frequency selection will be part of the solution.
Free Image Upload
http://picupload.pl
If you feel passionately about Linux support this petition to get Dell to stop the blockade and blacklisting of Linux and to stop forcing customers to buy Windows 7 and Microsoft Office if they want the latest Dell hardware. Make a difference and tell them to stop now....They have setup a petition website for the posting of new ideas and comments called Ideastorm, lets up-vote the issue and support the breaking of the Microsoft Cartel at Dell...
"Pre-Installed Linux | Ubuntu | Fedora | OpenSUSE | Multi-Boot" Link: http://www.ideastorm.com/idea2ReadIdea?id=0877000000006ixAAA&v=1339437474096 [ideastorm.com]
"Give the user a choice of Ubuntu/Fedora/RHEL or Windows on all desktops..." Link: http://www.ideastorm.com/idea2ReadIdea?Id=087700000008iglAAA&v=1339424370822 [ideastorm.com]
Please support this effort...