I would like to adjust the CPU frequency , in other word, looking for an API or c++ code for frequency scaling in windows ?
In Windows, you can call SetPriorityClass to set the priority of the process
You can also set the priority of a thread by calling SetThreadPriority
The CPU clock speed is not something for which there are just some simple instructions to execute. The clock speed is controlled by the motherboard chipset, and that in turn is controlled by a motherboard-specific device driver.
You can get some control over the clock speed by using the Windows settings for power management. The usual way to slow things down and save energy is to choose a setting on this basis. Modern laptop, tablet and phone computers have extremely sophisticated algorithms but you can hint them in the direction of less power.
You may be able to automate the operation of these Windows programs, if that's all you need.
Many motherboards come with the ability to overclock, and a utility to control it. If you have such a motherboard you may be able to find a way to automate its control program, or it may provide an API. It will not be a generic solution, but one highly specific to the motherboard. Check with your motherboard supplier.
Is there a general Windows capability to do this? Not so far as I know, but there could be something hiding in there somewhere. It will be privileged call to a device driver requiring admin rights, if it exists. My be is that it doesn't.
You can use: PowerWriteDCValueIndex(); / PowerWriteACValueIndex(); with PowerSetActiveScheme(NULL, pwrGUID);
Related
Please, make it once more clear the technical difference between these three things around MS Windows systems. First is Timer Resolution you may set and get via ntdll.dll non-exported functions NtSetTimerResolution and NtQueryTimerResolution or use the Sysinternals' clockres.exe tool.
One of the scandalous trick used by the Chrome browser some time ago to perform better across the web. (They left high resolution trick for Flash plugin only at the moment). https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=153139
https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/windows-timer-resolution-megawatts-wasted/
In fact Visual Studio and SQL Server in some cases do the trick as well. I personally feel like it performs the whole system better and crisp, not slow down as many people warn out there.
What is the difference between the timer resolution and application I/O and memory priority (realtime/high/above normal/normal/low/background/etc.) you may set via Task Manager except the fact that the timer resolution sets up for the whole system, not a single application?
What is the difference between them and Processor scheduling option you can adjust from CMD > SystemPropertiesPerformance.exe -> Advanced tab. By default, the users' OS versions (like XP/Vista/7/8/8.1/10) set the performance of programs, the servers' versions (2k3/2k8/2k12/2k16) do care of background services. How this option interacts with those two above?
timeBeginPeriod() is the documented api to do this. It is documented to affect the accuracy for Sleep(). Dave Cutler probably did not enjoy implementing it, but allowing Win 3.1 code to port made it necessary. The multi-media api back then was necessary to keep anemic hardware with small buffers going without stuttering.
Very crude, but there is no other good way to do it in the kernel. The normal state for a processor core is to be stopped on a HLT instruction. Consuming (almost) no power, the only way to revive it is with a hardware interrupt. Which is what it does, it cranks up the clock interrupt rate. Normally ticks 64 times per second, you can jack it up to 1000 with timeBeginPeriod, 2000 with the native api.
And yes, pretty bad for power consumption. The clock interrupt handler also activates the thread scheduler, an fairly unsubtle chunk of code. The reason why a Sleep() call can now wake up at (almost) the clock interrupt rate. Tinkered with in Win8.1 btw, the only thing I noticed about the changes is that it is not quite as responsive anymore and a 1 msec rate can cause up to 2 msec delays.
Chrome is indeed notorious for ab/using the heck out of it. I always assumed that it provided a competitive edge for a company that does big business in mobile operating systems and battery-powered devices. The guy that started this web site noticed something was wrong. The more responsible thing to do for a browser is to bump up the rate to 10 msec, necessary to get accurate GIF animation. Multi-media playback does not need it anymore.
This otherwise has no effect at all on scheduling priorities. One detail I did not check is if the thread quantum changes correspondingly (the number of ticks a thread may own a core before being evicted, 3 for a workstation). I suspect it does.
Some computers (e.g. Dell, Vaio) come with software that prevents a battery from charging.
This functionality allows me to use my laptop with battery (protected from power outage) and keep my battery from charging until it's down to, at most, 50% battery/charge remaining.
I want do write some code to automate this task.
I searched Dell Support Center for a solution, and I searched Google, too - no luck with either.
I thought about downloading the program and debugging it, but I couldn't find it.
Has anyone ever seen something like this?
Thanks
PS: I want to do this on a Dell Inspiron, and the code can be in C++/C# (or something)
I've never heard of a program that disables battery charging. (Why on earth would you want this?) If such programs exist, I imagine that they interact with the firmware or hardware at a very primitive level.
One thing you can try is a busy loop (burning power like mad) that checks the battery level and sleeps for a bit once it gets down to the target level. This won't do good things to the cpu temperature, however.
Some laptops come with battery charge limiting functionality - it is not via software though, but via firmware plus dedicated internal hardware I guess. Some Lenovo and Acer have such capability. The logic is not in software as the charge limiter kicks in even when the laptop is off.
The reason is that battery degrade when kept at 100% - as it is the case with laptops that are always plugged in. The new Acer Swift would limit at 80%, some Lenovo let one input a particular value.
If interested I can provide you with the software side - it works on Windows and Linux but can easily be available on MacOS. It works in conjunction with external hardware - i.e. a homeplug.
The code works but it's by no means production ready. It would need a bit of tweaking for a particular operating system and homeplug. Let know if interested.
Available on github: Charge Limiter
There is some easily available information on finding the status of a battery, or whether it's charging or not. (GetSystemPowerStatus API or System.Windows.Forms.SystemInformation.PowerStatus).
I want to be able to stop a battery from charging based on some criteria, e.g. battery power > 20%.
Is there an API to do this?
I think it's impossible, because you have need some API for battery or battery charger.
And this API can provide to you manufacturer of notebook and battery or battery charger support this.
I honestly don't know, but I'd have a look at the APM or ACPI APIs.
Other than that, the only option I can think of right now is a USB controlled robotic arm that ejects the battery when you need to stop charging, but that's probably not what you are looking for, and borders on the complicator's glove in terms of level of over-engineering. :)
I would just get a UPS and programatically tell it to cut all power... most should have an interface for doing this. Otherwise, as someone already said - a computer-controlled power strip would do it ^^
I've actually played with this idea when I was testing/writing about way too many new laptop models a while ago and the battery testing was annoying to set up, monitor and analyze.
I wrote an app that would do exactly everything (setup, listening, measuring, reporting) except unplugging the power and then replugging it and starting the computer again...
One of the options is to get hold of the device(I) for battery (Microsoft ACPI-Compliant Control Method Battery).
Listen for PowerNotification events forever. On each notification check the PowerStatus of the battery.
There are APIs for all of the above purposes in .Net and win32
Keep the device(I) disabled as long as the powerstatus is >threshold. Enable it as soon as goes below that or when you are not on AC power (i.e. before removing AC power, your continuously monitoring software should enable that battery device - or you manually enable it).
hmm,...this is a very buggy solution, but it can achieve what you want, although you have to be very careful.
Actually I use such a charge limiter. There is the control software - a Python script that monitors the battery level (psutil module) and controls external hardware - i.e. a switch that can be software controlled. I have Energenie and TP-Link homeplugs plus my own hardware contraption.
As it is for home use the software it's not polished at all, but with minimal effort can be adapted to any OS or hardware.
Let know if interested. The software lives here: CCC
How do I reversably slow a PC with XP?
I want to achieve this without using visible CPU-cycles, so I'm guessing some hardware settings might do.
I don't want my app to run slow, I want the whole OS to be slow. I know some network lookups especially out of a trusted environment (think Active Directory) slow a PC way down. This is the effect I want.
Disclaimer: this is not for a bad/evil/illegal cause!
We use a 'crippled' server we call doofus for load testing. it is an old P3/500 box with limited RAM.
Another option is setting up a VM with very limited resources.
Use powercfg.exe, to force the computer to a power plan you've created that locks the CPU into a lower frequency to conserve power. What states are available depend on your platform (most desktops only have a couple.)
If you think your hardware setup can handle it, some motherboards let you manually specify a clockspeed multiplier or other speed settings in the BIOS. Often there'll be an option for a slower speed or a field where you can manually enter a lower multiplier.
If not, you might consider setting up a virtual machine, and making sure it's not fully virtualized - paravirtualized machines run slower due to the necessary translations that take place in the virtualization layer.
The open source Bochs emulator is pretty easy to slow down by editing its config file. Windows XP will run in it. It is not as powerful as vmware, but there are many more configuration options.
Look at the documentation for the config file, "bochsrc", and particularly the "IPS" entry. (Instructions Per Second)
Remove the thermopaste and put some dust on the CPU :-) Also, remove some RAM.
You may want to take a look at a full-system simulator such as Simics. Simics allows you deterministically simulate an entire system (including networks, if you want). Not only can you tweak the CPU frequency, you can study the system in detail to see how it behaves.
Unfortunately, Simics has quite a pricetag.
If you want to see really dramatic effects very easily, set the /MAXMEM switch in boot.ini (or use msconfig). This will limit the amount of memory used by the system - switching to 256mb or lower would make things very, very slow.
You have lots of options. Things I can think of:
Change your disks to good old fashioned IDE. None of that high-speed DMA stuff, just good old fashioned PIO.
Remove RAM (or diable in the BIOS)
Switch to generic video drivers (I mean "Generic SVGA" type, that are un-accelerated)
Disable core(s) in the BIOS
Slow the CPU down in the bios (if possible)
We keep an old laptop around for this reason. Helped me to find a subtle timing issue in some splash screen code that was absolutely unreproducable on decent quad core dev boxes.
Install Norton 360. It makes the mouse cursor lag during updates and constantly nags for restarts.
Disable the L2 cache in the BIOS
Two Windows applications: Mo'Slo and Cpukiller.
I remember hearing of one that grabs large chunks of RAM, to reduce your available RAM, but I forget what it is called.
We recently changed some of our system requirements on a light weight application (it is essentially a thin gui client that connects to a "mainframe" that runs IBM UniVerse). We didn't change our minimum requirements at all, but changed our recommended requirements to match those of Windows 7 and Vista (since we run on those machines).
Some system requirements are fairly easy to determine (ie: network card, hard drive space, etc...). But CPU and RAM are harder to nail down.
Our current list of minimum requirements for CPU and RAM both state that you have to meet the minimum's for your operating system. That seems fairly reasonable to us, since our app uses only 15MB or active memory and very little CPU (it's a simple GUI, in this case), so that works. This seems fine, no one complains about that.
When it comes to recommended requirements though, we've run into trouble nailing down specifics, especially nowadays, when saying minimum 1.6 gHz (or similar) can mean anything when you start talking about multi-core processors, atom processors, etc... The thin client is starting to do more intensive stuff (it now contains an embedded web browser to help display more user friendly html pages, for example).
What would be a good way to go about determining recommended values for CPU and RAM?
Do you take the recommended for an O/S and add your usage values on top (so do we then say 1GB for Vista machines?)?
Is there a better way to do so?
(Note: this is similar in nature to the server question here, but from an application base instead)
Let's try this from another perspective.
First, test your application on a minimum configuration machine. What bottlenecks if any exist?
Does it cause a lot of disk swapping? If so, you need more RAM.
Is it generally slow when performing regular operations (excluding memory usage) then increase processor requirements.
Does it require diskspace beyond the app footprint such as for file handling? List that.
Does your app depend on certain instruction sets to be on chip? (SSE, Execute Disable Bit, Intel Virtualization,.. as examples). If so, then you have to list what processors will actually work with the app.
Typically speaking, if the app works fine when using a minimum configuration for the OS; then your "recommended" configuration should be identical to the OS's recommended.
At the end of the day, you probably need to have a couple of machines on hand to profile. Virtual machines are NOT a good option in this case. By definition, the VM and the host OS will have an impact. Further, just because you can throttle a certain processor down doesn't mean that it is running at a similar level to a processor normally built for that level.
For example, a Dual Core 1.8 GHz processor throttled to only use one core is still a very different beast than a P4 1.8 GHz processor. There are architectural differences as well as L2 and L3 cache changes.
By the same token, a machine with a P4 processor uses a different type of RAM than one with a dual core (DDR vs DDR2). RAM speeds do have an impact.
So, try to stick to the OS recommendations as they've already done the hard part for you.
Come up with some concrete non-functional requirements relating to things like latency of response, throughput, and startup time, and then benchmark them on a few varied machines. The attempt to extrapolate to what hardware will allow a typical user to have an experience that matches your requirements.
For determining the CPU and RAM you could try using Microsoft Virtual PC which allows you to set your CPU and RAM settings. You can then test a few different setups to see what would be sufficient for a regular user.
As for the recommended requirements, adding them on top of the basic OS requirements would probably be the safe bet.
Microsoft introduced the Windows Experience Index in Vista to solve this exact problem.
UPDATE FOR MORE INFO
It takes into consideration the entire system. Bear in mind that they may have a minimum level processor, but if they have a crap video card then a lot of processor time is going to be spent just drawing the windows... If you pick a decent experience index number like 3.0 then you can be reasonably assured that they will have a good experience with your application. If you require more horsepower, bump up the requirements to 4.0.
One example is the Dell I'm using to type this on. It's a 2 year old machine but still registers 4.2 on the experience index. Most business class machines should be able to register at least a 3; which should be enough horsepower for the app you described.
Incidentally, my 5 year old laptop registers as a 2.0 and it was mid level at the time I purchased it.