[TESTING] XDAndroid GBX0C 2.3.7 Build - Page 35

auburnham · #**341** (**permalink**) 03-31-2012, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auburnham

I'd still like to understand why I've seen little effect of changing minfrees after the 9/30/11 rootfs.img. If anyone has a suggested way to investigate, I would be interested in hearing it. Perhaps I could compare every file in this rootfs.img to the 9/20/11 rootfs.img for changes? Also, what are others' typical free memory just after boot and after a reasonable uptime?

I had an opportunity to investigate this further. I compared all files changed from the 9/20/11 rootfs.img to the 9/30/11 rootfs.img, and identified the change made by mweirauch labeled "fixup /dev/block/ramzswap0 creation" to be in /bin/userinit.sh, line 317. Originally, it was the following:

Code:

mknod -m 0666 /dev/block/ramzswap0 b 254 0

And it was updated to be the following:

Code:

mknod /dev/block/ramzswap0 b 253 0

When I revert back to the original line, (i.e. ... -m 0666 ... 254 0) my free memory is consistently higher and my performance is better without any obvious side effects. Can anyone explain what this line is doing, and why I might see the effects I'm seeing? Also, just to be clear, I am not recommending that anyone make this change, I am just trying to investigate potential performance improvements.

**arrrghhh** · #**342** (**permalink**) 04-01-2012, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auburnham

I had an opportunity to investigate this further. I compared all files changed from the 9/20/11 rootfs.img to the 9/30/11 rootfs.img, and identified the change made by mweirauch labeled "fixup /dev/block/ramzswap0 creation" to be in /bin/userinit.sh, line 317. Originally, it was the following:

Code:

mknod -m 0666 /dev/block/ramzswap0 b 254 0

And it was updated to be the following:

Code:

mknod /dev/block/ramzswap0 b 253 0

When I revert back to the original line, (i.e. ... -m 0666 ... 254 0) my free memory is consistently higher and my performance is better without any obvious side effects. Can anyone explain what this line is doing, and why I might see the effects I'm seeing? Also, just to be clear, I am not recommending that anyone make this change, I am just trying to investigate potential performance improvements.

Hrm, I'll see if emwe remembers why he made that change. The only difference I see is the permissions are not being set on the updated line (no -m 0666) and the file size is 1 byte smaller? b 253 instead of 254.

The manpage on mknod will help you understand a bit more what's going on perhaps?

mknod(1): make block/char special files - Linux man page

As to what the default is for permissions, or why you would be seeing different performance is strange indeed. Have you taken my newest rootfs from this bundle and changed that line? It works, you get tangibly better performance?

auburnham · #**343** (**permalink**) 04-01-2012, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arrrghhh

Hrm, I'll see if emwe remembers why he made that change. The only difference I see is the permissions are not being set on the updated line (no -m 0666) and the file size is 1 byte smaller? b 253 instead of 254.

The manpage on mknod will help you understand a bit more what's going on perhaps?

mknod(1): make block/char special files - Linux man page

As to what the default is for permissions, or why you would be seeing different performance is strange indeed. Have you taken my newest rootfs from this bundle and changed that line? It works, you get tangibly better performance?

I made the single line change to the rootfs.img that is included in the GBX0B bundle, and I believe it gives tangibly better performance. This is corroborated by the reported higher free memory as well.

**arrrghhh** · #**344** (**permalink**) 04-01-2012, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auburnham

I made the single line change to the rootfs.img that is included in the GBX0B bundle, and I believe it gives tangibly better performance. This is corroborated by the reported higher free memory as well.

Interesting. Seems like a pretty innocuous change IMHO, but if it helps it helps. I'll definitely try to confirm with emwe on that change, and if I don't hear anything back I'll at least push it to my rootfs included with this bundle.

boneskid1 · #**345** (**permalink**) 04-01-2012, 09:20 PM

is there some special way to load music with these builds? i added like 10 or 15 albums of music on the sd card into a folder called music but the stock player only sees 4 of the albums and 2 of them won't even play it tells me they are of invalid format. that is why i came here because i thought that was all you had to do but it appears not

**arrrghhh** · #**346** (**permalink**) 04-01-2012, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneskid1

is there some special way to load music with these builds? i added like 10 or 15 albums of music on the sd card into a folder called music but the stock player only sees 4 of the albums and 2 of them won't even play it tells me they are of invalid format. that is why i came here because i thought that was all you had to do but it appears not

Just MP3's? Or another format?

There's also this debacle with the MediaScanner if you use the built-in app. I think you have to put them in a special folder name, but honestly I thought that special name was 'music'. Maybe it's 'media'...?

boneskid1 · #**347** (**permalink**) 04-02-2012, 02:43 PM

yes according to my laptop and the macbook all the files are .mp3 and the folders that contain the .mp3's are located in a folder called music. so when i get home im going to look at it some more as i dont have the phone with me right now, ill try the media suggestion. i also did a google search and found a few thread on android forums that sugessted the files were .flac protected or had a different codec than was supported

**arrrghhh** · #**348** (**permalink**) 04-02-2012, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneskid1

i also did a google search and found a few thread on android forums that sugessted the files were .flac protected or had a different codec than was supported

Yea, that's what I was getting at...

See what else native users do for playing media on the phone. Most (if not all) of it should apply.

boneskid1 · #**349** (**permalink**) 04-02-2012, 09:26 PM

ok i checked and all of the files Showing up or not are mp3 format according to windows but each album has songs that are a different bit rate. one album is 160kbps the other might be 128kbps a few of the songs by themselves were even 360 kbps so im wondering if the stock player has a limit or its just being dumb

**arrrghhh** · #**350** (**permalink**) 04-03-2012, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneskid1

ok i checked and all of the files Showing up or not are mp3 format according to windows but each album has songs that are a different bit rate. one album is 160kbps the other might be 128kbps a few of the songs by themselves were even 360 kbps so im wondering if the stock player has a limit or its just being dumb

Well start small. Take 5 files, all different bit rates. See if they all show up/play. If so, add perhaps several folders deep if you had that before. If it still works, perhaps the sheer number overwhelmed the mediascanner, and either it needs to be run manually, or needs to be given more time to run...?

Not sure, but why not just use something other than the stock player? There's _a ton_ of options out there, some of which you can probably just point to a folder on your card and have it build its own database.