Re: Car Parking Windows 7 Indir
Engracia Kina
Shawn Farka's blog post explains the original intent of the Parking Window well. The expense of having to re-create the child windows was certainly on top of the list. Not the only concern though, some types of child windows are very difficult to re-create accurately. A TreeView is a good example, there's rather a lot of runtime state associate with it. To do it accurately, you'd have to record the collapse state of every node. That's painful and Winforms does not in fact do this. When you re-assign, say, the CheckBoxes or StateImageList properties then you'll see this going wrong.
All and all, it is a nice trick but they went overboard with it. A child control doesn't just (temporarily) end up on the Parking Window when the parent window gets recreated, it also is moved there when:
Particularly the last two bullets are almost always deadly in a typical Winforms program. They tend to be used when the programmer dynamically adds and removes controls at runtime. Problem is, the control is re-hosted on the Parking Window but the programmer just forgets them there, losing the reference to the control. And they will live there forever. Until the user terminates the program because it turns into slow molasses from having thousands of windows created. Or the program crashes with "Error creating window handle". Which occurs when Windows gets sulky after the program has created 10,000 windows.
Instead, it is required to call the Dispose() method of the control. Very unusual in .NET in general, calling Dispose() is always optional. Not in the case of the Control class, the Parking Window keeps a reference on the control and thus prevents the finalizer from running.
One of our goals with Windows Forms was try to smooth out as much of the oddity of Win32 as we could. And one of the principal oddities is that of window handle (HWND) management and lifetime. We certainly didn't want the average user to need to worry about this stuff. In most cases, it was pretty easy. You just gather up all of the state, and then when you actually need to show the window, you do the creation on demand, then you drive your state off the HWND instead of your internal members.
Well, this doesn't always work so well. See, there are certain properties of Win32 windows that you can't change once the window is created. Like the style of the border, for example. So to allow a user to change the border style after the window has been created, you need to recreate the handle. Which means you need to not only pull all of the state out you want out of the existing one, but you need to recreate it and push it back in. Okay, that's not too hard.
If the window you're modifying the border on has children, destroying its handle will destroy the handles of all of its children as well. Then you need to recreate them, which is very expensive. And expensive is bad.
Enter the Parking Window. The Parking Window was our solution to this problem. It was somewhere that you could "park" HWNDs until you have a fitting parent for them. Think of it as Window Handle Foster Care, but invisible.
So in the case of a handle-recreate, we'd check to see if there were any children. If there were, we'd (if needed) create the Parking Window, parent the children to that, recreate the parent's handle, then move them back over. Worked pretty well, though managing the lifetime of the Parking Window did cause some problems...
Windows 11 Pro, 13900KS, RTX 4090. Max settings. I had awful stuttering/hitching in menus and in game on 2.9. Saw someone else posted about core parking and I tried it. My game has NEVER been so smooth. Here is the 2 minute video about it. Try it and see if it helps you out like it did me. I never post on here but this helped me out so much I had to.
If you do not see the "Processor performance core parking min cores" option under "Processor power management" when viewing a power plan, then you can run the following command from an admin command prompt
Alright, I digged further into it, because if 100% is the default setting for the high performance power plan (which is the one I've always been using on my system), then why would it still be parking cores? Well, seems like there is another setting called "Processor performance core parking min cores for performance class 1 cores" or similar (my system is in German, so I'm not sure how the correct English description is) for systems with P- and E- cores that is set to 0% by default even on the high performance power plan. I guess this was the culprit. Testing now.
Edit: Alright, yeah, with this setting set to 100% as well, Windows has now stopped putting cores into parking and these major freezes in DCS seem to be gone. Will need to do some further testing to be entirely sure, but looking good.
Oh, sorry, I didn't noticed this setting was already included in the command you posted, as I digged into it myself after you gave me the right pointers. My bad!
Anyways, I'm glad I did do that, because it was quite eye opening to see what's going on there and what other hidden settings are available.
I hope your findings will help ED to address this issue
On systems with CPUs that have both P- and E- cores (like the 12700, 12900, 13700 and 13900 intel CPUs) the 'High Performance' plan has core parking disabled by default only for the E-cores. On these systems you need to disable core parking for the P- cores as well as @AdrianL described here:
Or just reset the entire power plan. Edit Power Plan, set another power plan active, select the the power plan you want to reset and then 'Restore plan defaults'. Then set that power plan active again
For those that don't know, CPU parking is a feature in recent Windows Server releases that allows Windows to pretty much drop a CPU core to zero use, and having nothing use it. It's been introduced as a power-saving measure. There's more detail about it here, amongst other places.
However what I'm curious about is whether this matter on a virtualised guest - or is CPU parking more of a hindrance than a help, given that the physical CPUs are managed by ESXi, not Windows, and that a parked CPU is less likely to deal with traffic unless the scheduler deems there's enough work to unpark the CPU?
I've not found anything about this - I do suspect it will be very much based on a given workload, but I've not seen any discussion (unlike, say, whether hyper-threading has any effect, which seems to be discussed regularly). Whilst I do understand the "test with your workload" I was wondering if there was any advice/guidelines out there that I've missed.
It wouldn't matter. If you want to save power, allocate less cores to the VM guest. Windows will try to manage its "virtual" cores, but it has no control over the hypervisor so it wouldn't affect the actual physical CPUs on the system.
CPU Parking is a low-power sleep state (C6) supported by most modern processors and operating systems. It dynamically disables CPU cores in an effort to conserve power when idle. Unfortunately, this power saving comes at a price: Latency when CPUs need unparked to execute code.
Empirical evidence shows that disabling CPU core parking can make a tangible improvement in system performance. There are many factors that will determine precisely how effective it will be for a given situation. However, generally, Windows is too aggressive in its core parking, resulting in high latency during bursting CPU loads, stemming from the overhead of having to unpark CPU cores. Since bursting CPU loads are the most common type for many workloads, core parking can be a substantial drag on system performance and responsiveness.
Both CPU core parking and frequency scaling are power saving features of modern CPUs. CPU core parking is when cores are put into a sleep-like state when demand is low. Similarly, CPU frequency scaling allows the CPU base frequency to be lowered, again to conserve energy.
ParkControl changes settings of the Windows power plans based on your selections. These changes persist even if ParkControl is not running or uninstalled. For system defined power plans, you can reset to defaults in the Windows Power Options (linked to from the ParkControl GUI).
ParkControl is normally used to disable core parking to achieve a performance boost, not enable it. Enabling core parking can cause performance problems with some CPUs, depending on how aggressive the parameters are. That said, yes, you can save energy by enabling core parking, but we recommend only doing that in select power plans, such as Power Saver.
CPMinCores specifies the minimum percentage of logical processors (in terms of all logical processors that are enabled on the system within each NUMA node) that can be placed in the un-parked state at any given time.
CPIncreaseTime specifies the minimum amount of time that must elapse before additional logical processors can be transitioned from the parked state to the unparked state. The time is specified in units of the number of processor performance time check intervals.
CPDecreaseTime specifies the minimum amount of time that must elapse before additional logical processors can be transitioned from the unparked state to the parked state. The time is specified in units of the number of processor performance time check intervals.
CPHeadroom specifies the value of utilization that would cause the core parking engine to unpark an additional logical processor if the least utilized processor out of the unparked set of processors had more utilization. This enables increases in concurrency to be detected.
59fb9ae87f