Re: [Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Belated response, but just for the record, Paride's recounting of upstream's position in the context of the Debian decision was definitive for me: On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:47:56AM -, Paride Legovini wrote: > Back in the day I asked upstream their take on irqbalance usefulness > with newer kernels, here is their reply: In effect what this says is that: irqbalance is still useful, but unless the admin configures it, the policy it provides is not a discernable improvement over the in-kernel default policy. Therefore I think it is the right path forward to unseed this and let users install it in situations where they want to configure it. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Please consider no more having irqbalance enabled by default (per image/use-case/TBD) Status in cloud-images: New Status in Release Notes for Ubuntu: In Progress Status in Ubuntu on IBM z Systems: Opinion Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Opinion Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-images/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
** Changed in: ubuntu-z-systems Status: New => Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in Ubuntu on IBM z Systems: Confirmed Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-z-systems/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Speaking from a Desktop perspective, it's difficult to have a strong opinion without data to backup the decision but it does feel like that in the light of what other distributions/upstream are doing we should reverse the default and go with option A and not have it by default but an opt-in instead. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in Ubuntu on IBM z Systems: New Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-z-systems/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Hi Christian,
Thank you, yes I don't disagree with anything you said. There can be no
"one size fits all" and customizing performance tuning will always be
important but I will argue
1. There can be a "one size fits most" at least for desktop client
environments ("general optimization")
2. It may be surprising what "general optimization" entails given the
general lack of consideration to the psychological experience of the user.
Apple discovered this as a historical accident a few decades ago. I am no
fan of them, though, because they don't allow that customization. My wife
is dyslexic and uses a Mac for work that does not allow her to install and
use OpenDyslexic fonts in the OS because Apple has already "determined what
is best."
To ground the 2nd point above, I would give a hypothetical: trading 25ms of
latency/jitter for a 10% gain in throughput might seem like a no-brainer
from a benchmarking perspective. But when user psychology is factored in as
well as allowing for adequate default performance for the widest use cases
available, the tradeoff quickly becomes unacceptable. The "relatively
large" 10% throughput has very little relevance outside of benchmarking
whereas the 25ms of latency/jitter can make or break entire workflows and
usage scenarios from a user perspective covering a broad set of scenarios.
The only danger there is that people will compare "out of the box benchmark
performance" and say "this system is slower than that system!"
But I agree, now it's time for more discussion and input (including data)
from others. I'm glad that this discussion is occurring! I don't think I
have anything more to offer at this point.
ethan
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:20 PM Christian Ehrhardt <
1833...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> Hi Etanay,
>
> I realize I maybe wrote too much :-/
> So I start with a TL;DR:
> AFAICS you are right in all you say, but I think there can not be "one
> right answer" anyway. Hence I'm trying to leave all parties their freedom
> of defining what is important to them and try to learn from them what
> impact irqbalance has to that.
>
>
> > Yes I was not arguing strictly against irqbalance, just trying
> > to ascertain some discussion parameters as well as parameters for data
> > collection.
>
> Yeah, I see that and didn't intend to rebut your statements either.
> Just push them a bit into potential context and POV of others.
>
>
> > I have not yet seen a coherent philosophy on what it means to "optimize
> > performance" with default settings that serve the greatest capacity of
> > server or desktop scenarios.
>
> That is true, but the reason for that is that you can only optimize for
> something like a workload or particular HW.
>
> The defaults are usually trying to be not too crappy for any possible
> thing that might happen on e.g. Ubuntu which is quite a scope.
>
> > In my humble opinion, data collection is useless without this
> > framework of understanding what it is we are trying to achieve
> > and why in terms of system performance. To me this is the deeper
> > unresolved issue, perhaps.
>
> I can see your point and would not even argue against. But this is
> (this is opinion and a bit of experience, not scientific proven
> truth) only the problem if we'd try to solve the singular global
> and always valid "is irqbalance good or bad" question.
>
> Thinking about it I think I'm even of the same opinion than you,
> but instead of standardizing excatly what we are trying to achieve
> (which to me feels like selecting a workload or HW as optimization
> target) I was trying to reach out to as many groups as possible
> so we can see what HW/workloads are important to them and how
> irqbalance might help or interfere with that.
>
> A bit like the old case where some clouds brought it up that it is
> conflicting in virtio-net on their substrate and to be disabled
> by default there (see Debian and also some Ubuntu cloud images).
>
> I have personally no hope in reaching a general "this is good / bad"
> without considering it per workload or HW environment.
>
> Hence my hope is that if we manage to get this variety of preferences
> of different parties and only then the impact of irqbalance to that
> we can make compartmentalized decisions.
> For example as some suggested, making it no more the default in
> Desktop, but keeping it in other cases.
>
> And this is just me trying to be helpful and drive this from being
> a dormant case to something useful, I do not pretend to have the
> masterplan or the solution yet :-)
>
>
> > I fear that systems are currently optimized by default for throughput.
> For
> > users, responsiveness (which can include but is not limited to
> throughput)
> > and latency may be more important psychologically
>
> Can I just say yes here, you go into lengths explaining (thanks) but I
> already agreed here :-)
>
> Yet - as true as that is - it is true for a set of workloads and hardware,
> but not for all that Ubuntu can be (as I outlined above neither
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Hi Etanay, I realize I maybe wrote too much :-/ So I start with a TL;DR: AFAICS you are right in all you say, but I think there can not be "one right answer" anyway. Hence I'm trying to leave all parties their freedom of defining what is important to them and try to learn from them what impact irqbalance has to that. > Yes I was not arguing strictly against irqbalance, just trying > to ascertain some discussion parameters as well as parameters for data > collection. Yeah, I see that and didn't intend to rebut your statements either. Just push them a bit into potential context and POV of others. > I have not yet seen a coherent philosophy on what it means to "optimize > performance" with default settings that serve the greatest capacity of > server or desktop scenarios. That is true, but the reason for that is that you can only optimize for something like a workload or particular HW. The defaults are usually trying to be not too crappy for any possible thing that might happen on e.g. Ubuntu which is quite a scope. > In my humble opinion, data collection is useless without this > framework of understanding what it is we are trying to achieve > and why in terms of system performance. To me this is the deeper > unresolved issue, perhaps. I can see your point and would not even argue against. But this is (this is opinion and a bit of experience, not scientific proven truth) only the problem if we'd try to solve the singular global and always valid "is irqbalance good or bad" question. Thinking about it I think I'm even of the same opinion than you, but instead of standardizing excatly what we are trying to achieve (which to me feels like selecting a workload or HW as optimization target) I was trying to reach out to as many groups as possible so we can see what HW/workloads are important to them and how irqbalance might help or interfere with that. A bit like the old case where some clouds brought it up that it is conflicting in virtio-net on their substrate and to be disabled by default there (see Debian and also some Ubuntu cloud images). I have personally no hope in reaching a general "this is good / bad" without considering it per workload or HW environment. Hence my hope is that if we manage to get this variety of preferences of different parties and only then the impact of irqbalance to that we can make compartmentalized decisions. For example as some suggested, making it no more the default in Desktop, but keeping it in other cases. And this is just me trying to be helpful and drive this from being a dormant case to something useful, I do not pretend to have the masterplan or the solution yet :-) > I fear that systems are currently optimized by default for throughput. For > users, responsiveness (which can include but is not limited to throughput) > and latency may be more important psychologically Can I just say yes here, you go into lengths explaining (thanks) but I already agreed here :-) Yet - as true as that is - it is true for a set of workloads and hardware, but not for all that Ubuntu can be (as I outlined above neither decision could be true for all) > And power saving is important in global terms, as even small gains > multiplied over hundreds or thousands of deployments can have a > significant impact True as well, yet - again - most servers are often split by some virt solution to pay off by their price running at high utilization. There to reach density often people are ok to forfeit some latency for overall throughput and thereby density which saves power by having x% less systems active at all. P.S. I'm now waiting for further input by all of you that found the thread so far as well as hopefully some of all the teams, hardware manufacturers and clouds that I have connected to please think about this question. P.P.S. I'm drifting away of seeing a big deja-vu into my decade of Linux on mainframe performance - and density and performance and interfering workloads that invalidated all you knew when looking at just one ... and you know what the answer always was and still is: "it depends" as any performance engineer will love to tell you :-) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in Ubuntu on IBM z Systems: New Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.
Re: [Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Hi Christian, Thank you. Yes I was not arguing strictly against irqbalance, just trying to ascertain some discussion parameters as well as parameters for data collection. I have not yet seen a coherent philosophy on what it means to "optimize performance" with default settings that serve the greatest capacity of server or desktop scenarios. In my humble opinion, data collection is useless without this framework of understanding what it is we are trying to achieve and why in terms of system performance. To me this is the deeper unresolved issue, perhaps. I fear that systems are currently optimized by default for throughput. For users, responsiveness (which can include but is not limited to throughput) and latency may be more important psychologically (there is an analogy to this in AV production: we can actually get by with fairly poor video quality--which consumes the most bandwidth and processor power--if audio quality remains adequate; ie, audio quality has a disproportionately high impact on psychology compared to video, especially per unit of data or processing power allocated). And power saving is important in global terms, as even small gains multiplied over hundreds or thousands of deployments can have a significant impact, even if the client or operator doesn't notice much. ethan On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:35 AM Christian Ehrhardt < 1833...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote: > Hi Ethanay > > All I can find is a recommendation not to use it on CPUs with 2 or fewer > > cores as the overhead is said to be too high > > This isn't a real problem anyway, the service will stop immediately if only > running on one core - even if running on multiple cores with the same > cache (as the intended benefit is due to cache hotness by having all I/O > hitting the same cache). > > > I can imagine it might still add undesirable or even critical latency in > > applications that are highly latency sensitive > > I understand your line of thought, but it might even improve latency. > If there is no bottleneck on the cores assigned to handle an IRQ then > the improved cache hit rate will make even latency better. > And if there is a strong bottleneck, then some drivers without IRQbalance > would end up locked on one cpu - so again these might gain lower latency. > But I have no data on this either (just like no one seems to have on almost > any of this). > > Just like others I'd personally more expect the drawback to be on a > potential > lack of power saving. > > > This website gave me some clarity on the theory and purpose: > > https://www.baeldung.com/linux/irqbalance-modern-hardware > > Hah, didn't find this one yet - thank you! > But to me it only underlines the "it can help as much or even more often" > expectation. > > -- > You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug > report. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 > > Title: > Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images > > Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: > Confirmed > Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: > Confirmed > > Bug description: > as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 > > Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): > > $ cat /etc/os-release > NAME="Pop!_OS" > VERSION="19.04" > ID=ubuntu > ID_LIKE=debian > PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" > VERSION_ID="19.04" > HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; > SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; > BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; > PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; > VERSION_CODENAME=disco > UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco > > Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE > NAME): > > $ apt policy irqbalance > irqbalance: > Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 > Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 > Version table: > *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 > 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages > 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status > > $ apt rdepends irqbalance > irqbalance > Reverse Depends: > Recommends: ubuntu-standard > gce-compute-image-packages > > Issue/Bug Description: > > as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and > http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected > > irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it > is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power > savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments > that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- > oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a > desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. > > Steps to reproduce (if you know): > > This is potentially an issue with all default installs. > > Expected behavior: > > n/a > > Other Notes: > > I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any > apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where > they need it, then they always have
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Hi Christian, Thank you for your reply to my post. > I do not know the ping pong test, A simple token passing ring, that is useful for getting the system to utilize shallow idles states. Otherwise it can be difficult to get to such shallow states on my test system, without them being timer based. While not relevant to this thread, the test presents a challenge for the TEO (Timer Events Orientated) idle governor, and the menu governor should perform better. > but on iperf, I think that is in the noise > range as far as I remember. Agreed. I am just searching for good example type tests is all. > If you'd just re-run that as-is what is the delta > on your test box? Oh. it's repeatable. I just haven't got to re-testing it yet with 24.04 as my host hardware. > let me ask, what kind of system (cpu, size, nodes, ...) > was that. Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-10600K CPU @ 4.10GHz 6 cores, 2 threads per core, 12 CPUs. HWP enabled (A.K.A. Intel Speed Shift) intel_pstate CPU frequency driver powersave governor teo idle governor (but menu used below) No throttling involved, ever. > Your results show no change or minimal > degradation while at the same time losing > a bit of power. Have you also had a chance > to try the powerthresh argument > that Steve mentioned above? I was just searching for a good test, and since that post I did find a really good one (not reported here). However, that was with 20.04 which has an old version of irqbalance. So I made my system dual boot adding 24.04. That same test is now not good at all for showing any differences. And yes, also tested with the powerthresh argument. Just for completeness, the attached graph shows processor package power and the only other graph that had some slight signal above the noise, the "idle state 1 was to deep" graph. The test: 6 ping pong pairs, with almost no work done at each stop, 300 million loops. About 27 minutes. Legend: irqb-menu-disable: irqbalance disabled, menu governor. irqb-menu-enable-1: irqbalance enabled with powerthresh=1, menu governor. irqb-menu-enable: irqbalance enabled, menu governor. Power: see graph, same for all. irqbalance disabled: 5.1854 uSec/loop irqbalance enabled powerthresh=1: 5.1966 uSec/loop irqbalance enabled: 5.1817 uSec/loop ** Attachment added: "power-and-1-above.png" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/1833322/+attachment/5738151/+files/power-and-1-above.png -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in Ubuntu on IBM z Systems: New Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-z-systems/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launc
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Just saw a mention of this bug, and I wanted to provide another datapoint: I recently sponsored a SRU for an irqbalance bugfix (LP #2038300), it was for an edge server platform (NVIDIA IGX Orin). What I noticed was that the code was inherently racy and hard to validate with unit tests because it's trying to read from multiple kernel data structures in virtual filesystems and then take action. I do believe its function would better be provided in the kernel itself. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in Ubuntu on IBM z Systems: New Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-z-systems/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
** Tags added: architecture-s39064 bugnameltc-204586 severity-medium targetmilestone-inin2404 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in Ubuntu on IBM z Systems: New Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-z-systems/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
** Also affects: ubuntu-z-systems Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Changed in: ubuntu-z-systems Assignee: (unassigned) => bugproxy (bugproxy) ** Tags added: reverse-proxy-bugzilla -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in Ubuntu on IBM z Systems: New Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-z-systems/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Pings done, in a perfect world (if all reply) that would cover more than we ever need, but then there is 0% guarantee they even have time or care about this at the moment :-) If anyone has connections as well, please ask them to participate too. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Hi Dough > If irqbalance is to be included by default, then there should be due > diligence to demonstrate a clear benefit. You are right that we should have that as well. But this would be even more ture if this would be about "making it the default when it was not before". Right now (purely opinion) the lack of data can IMHO neither be used to keep it nor to remove it - which sadly locks this up a bit. > The results were: I want to thank you a lot, this won't be enough but it is a masterpiece demonstration of dedicating time to start providing such data. Thank you. I do not know the ping pong test, but on iperf, I think that is in the noise range as far as I remember. If you'd just re-run that as-is what is the delta on your test box? Hoping that this will be extended by more contributing different workloads on different systems let me ask, what kind of system (cpu, size, nodes, ...) was that. I know you are good at writing up things, you might set the standard how others might report to this :-) Your results show no change or minimal degradation while at the same time losing a bit of power. Have you also had a chance to try the powerthresh argument that Steve mentioned above? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
I want to try to avoid that this becomes too stale, so I wondered what we can do from here. Two things came to my mind. On one hand I will try to use some indirect relations to pull in some HW manufacturer experts. They often have large performance teams tracking things like that against different workloads. And on the other hand, due to the request seemingly to close in on "please consider not making it the default on desktop" (server is more likely to have these large scaling workloads that are more likely to benefit) we need to pull in someone from Desktop a bit more. I'll do a few direct pings for that as well to ensure to get their voice too. Doing so now ... -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Hi Paride > Back in the day I asked upstream their take on irqbalance usefulness with > newer kernels, here is their reply: > https://github.com/Irqbalance/irqbalance/issues/151 Thanks for this and the other extra pointers. The Debian bug was referenced before, AFAIC it is mostly around a) the kernel got smarter in many cases (true) b) bad in virtual environments (we already removed it from those) And in that discussion the upstream comments (it is good to see that they are still convinced of their code) revolved around: c) There should be no conflict with running irqbalance (with the new kernel) d) The kernel policy is driver centric (irqbalance has a full picture) Both - as I read them - are more arguments to keep it than to remove. But as all other, not with enough data to make it a clear yes/no. As I said much earlier in this case, I feel this is system and workload dependent and hence there will never be a clear generic yes/no. The best we can achieve is finding sets (like images used in virtual environments - or as suggested desktop systems) and drop it being the default there. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Hi Mike > SUSE ... says that the first step to get there is to disable irqbalance I've read the same, IMHO that is just "if you want to manually tune, disable it" which does not imply that it is bad to have it. But this is how I read it, I have not talked to the authors to get their underlaying reasoning. > Applications vendors ... currently recommend removing irqbalance The only one that does so AFAICS is cpufreq and everyone else just links to their reasoning and follows. And even some statements there like "If you are still running irqbalance, you are not getting the maximum performance your system is capable of!" are hard to believe as a general statement - especially without data across a wide variety of system types and workload. As we have seen as well in the references linked, irqbalance helps just as much for "maximum performance" in many other cases. > I found this blog (https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/post/irqbalance- design-and-internals) Thanks, every extra background we find will only help (except for those joining later to read more). > The question I have is, if Ubuntu is Debian Branch, and we long ago went > from having different kernels for desktop & server in ubuntu-base, but do > have ubuntu-server packages and ubuntu-desktop packages, where things could > be different, why is this still a broad sweep as a default install "for all"? Because there was no well-funded conclusion like "it really is bad for environment X" to remove it. You are right that there are no technical blockers to make it e.g. kept in servers but no more the default in Desktop. After all it is already dropped in cloud-images used in virtual environemnts as it had a more clear reasoning and argument there. And there are also cases where irqbalance missing caused performance impact and bug reports like the already mentioned [1] (clearly high scale server though) > I am happy that this is getting discussed properly now so that we can > relook at this, and what it means to us today. Ack, that is why I tried to compile all I've found into one place. [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/2038573 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Hi Ethanay > All I can find is a recommendation not to use it on CPUs with 2 or fewer > cores as the overhead is said to be too high This isn't a real problem anyway, the service will stop immediately if only running on one core - even if running on multiple cores with the same cache (as the intended benefit is due to cache hotness by having all I/O hitting the same cache). > I can imagine it might still add undesirable or even critical latency in > applications that are highly latency sensitive I understand your line of thought, but it might even improve latency. If there is no bottleneck on the cores assigned to handle an IRQ then the improved cache hit rate will make even latency better. And if there is a strong bottleneck, then some drivers without IRQbalance would end up locked on one cpu - so again these might gain lower latency. But I have no data on this either (just like no one seems to have on almost any of this). Just like others I'd personally more expect the drawback to be on a potential lack of power saving. > This website gave me some clarity on the theory and purpose: > https://www.baeldung.com/linux/irqbalance-modern-hardware Hah, didn't find this one yet - thank you! But to me it only underlines the "it can help as much or even more often" expectation. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Hi Steve, > I see a lot of strong opinions ... I would want any decision to remove > irqbalance from the desktop to be based on evidence, not conjecture. I agree that there is plenty of opinion (often backing up each other with cyclic links) and not much data. Hence my compilation of the history to make it somehwat consumable. I wasn't entirely sure on my own but I agree that we'd need data to back up changes, thanks for empowering that branch of the decision tree. Yet on the other hand, that most likely means not much will move quickly. Which is fine, but also makes it unlikely to conclude before Noble freezes. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Hi, adding a couple of extra pointers here (I'm the Debian irqbalance maintainer). This the Debian bug where the discussion on removing irqbalance from the kernel Recommends happened: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=926967 In Debian irqbalance is not installed anymore by default since mid-2019 (clearly reflected by popcon: https://qa.debian.org/popcon- graph.php?packages=irqbalance), and no bug was reported related to it being missing. Back in the day I asked upstream their take on irqbalance usefulness with newer kernels, here is their reply: https://github.com/Irqbalance/irqbalance/issues/151 ** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #926967 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=926967 ** Bug watch added: github.com/Irqbalance/irqbalance/issues #151 https://github.com/Irqbalance/irqbalance/issues/151 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Lots of good comments. I sort of agree with: > So if we're going to make a change, there > should be due diligence to demonstrate a > benefit, it should not be based on > Internet hype. However, I would have said: If irqbalance is to be included by default, then there should be due diligence to demonstrate a clear benefit. Simplier is better, and every added thing can have issues, bug 2046470 being an example for irqbalance. On my Ubuntu 20.04 test server (kernel 6.7-rc8) running a 24.04 server VM (with 4 vcpus) I ran 3 token passing ping pong pairs, monitoring power and idle states on the host with irqbalance enabled and disabled on both host and guest. The results were: irqbalance disabled: pair 1: 4.3378 uSec/loop pair 2: 4.4207 uSec/loop pair 3: 4.5144 uSec/loop Processor energy: 87,500 Joules. irqbalance enabled: pair 1: 4.5828 uSec/loop +5.6% pair 2: 4.7084 uSec/loop +6.5% pair 3: 4.7704 uSec/loop +5.7% Processor energy: 92,252 Joules. +5.43% The attached graph is processor power at 15 seconds per sample from 30 seconds before until some seconds after the test completes. The extra extra energy for the irqbalanced test is because the test took longer to complete. I also have graphs for all idle states usage and above/below stats, none of which reveal anything. Another test done was iperf3 between the guest and host forcing a small tcp window size. The test was run for 22 minutes. The command: iperf3 --interval 0 --bidir --window 1024 --time 1320 -c s19.smythies.com irqbalance enabled: 412 MBytes sent 45.1 GBytes rec'd Processor energy: 69,272 Joules. irqbalance disabled: 413 MBytes sent, 0.24% improved 45.2 GBytes rec'd, 0.22% improved Processor energy: 70,560 Joules. +1.86% The related idle graphs don't reveal anything. A third test was iperf3 between the guest and host using the default (big) tcp window size. The test was run for 22 minutes. The command: iperf3 --interval 0 --bidir --time 1320 -c s19.smythies.com irqbalance enabled: 6.99 TBytes sent 2.10 TBytes rec'd 9.09 TBytes total Processor energy: 77,888 Joules. irqbalance disabled: 7.62 TBytes sent, 9.0% improved 1.62 TBytes rec'd, 22.9% worse 9.24 TBytes total, 1.65% improved Processor energy: 80,166 Joules. +2.92% The graphs (not attached) show the main differences are in idle state 0 usage. Other notes: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-10600K CPU @ 4.10GHz HWP enabled intel_pstate CPU frequency driver powersave governor ** Attachment added: "power.png" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/1833322/+attachment/5737186/+files/power.png -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : de
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
I said my initial piece and recommendation here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/2046470/comments/2 It carries through here... This was brought up as a recommendation in Launchpad (here in this bug report) back in 2019, In that bug report, I questioned why this had been ignored, and not discussed much since then. It didn't go away, and it was discussed as it should have been. I was embarrassed that it had been that way for 4 years. Since then: By then Debian had already removed it from being installed as a default. Ubuntu kept it. even after that bug report... RedHat had removed it from being default installed. SUSE, is a special case, where they kept it for their Enterprise Server Lineup... Because they have different tuning settings for them, versus their desktops and other product images. But then on page 16 of their Performance Analysis, Tuning and Tools Guide (https://documentation.suse.com/sbp/server-linux/pdf/SBP-performance-tuning_en.pdf), that chapter starts out with this quote: >>> A correct IRQ configuration – above all in multi-core architecture and >>> multi-thread >>> applications– can have a profound impact on throughput and latency >>> performance ...and further says that the first step to get there is to disable irqbalance (where they give the instructions to disable the service) and how to go through irq configuration from there. Applications vendors, which we have in our repo's, such as Vlave Steam and CpuFrq, currently recommend removing irqbalance, if installed. RE: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton/issues/3243 http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/ Additional to the blog article linked to in the last comment above, I found this blog (https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/post/irqbalance-design-and-internals), that goes into how it makes decisions in load balancing and is best summed up in it's conclusion: >>> This article described the internals of the irqbalance daemon. The >>> information provided >>> here can be used to debug and better understand load balance decisions >>> taken by irqbalance. The question I have is, if Ubuntu is Debian Branch, and we long ago went from having different kernels for desktop & server in ubuntu-base, but do have ubuntu-server packages and ubuntu-desktop packages, where things could be different, why is this still a broad sweep as a default install? I am happy that this is getting discussed properly now so that we can relook at this ad what it means to us today. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~de
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users. ** Changed in: irqbalance (Ubuntu) Status: New => Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Does it seem correct to say that the general intention of irqbalance wrt to system performance is to improve throughput (translating in some cases to a more responsive system) at a cost of increased processing latency? If so, then it should be considered and tuned generally with regards to usage scenarios that consider latency vs throughput. Eg digital audio workstations and gaming machines might disable it. But as Steve says, we don't have any data on the tradeoffs. How much more throughput/responsiveness for what cost in latency under what configurations? All I can find is a recommendation not to use it on CPUs with 2 or fewer cores as the overhead is said to be too high (which acc to above would translate to "unreasonable amount of latency for relatively little or even no throughput gains"), but even then, are we talking physical or logical/virtual cores? It seems like the more cores a system has, the more trivial the overhead from running irqbalance per performance/responsiveness gain. Is there a threshold number of cores beyond which something like IRQ balance becomes strongly recommended for general computing applications? But even then just like power scaling I can imagine it might still add undesirable or even critical latency in applications that are highly latency sensitive (eg when milliseconds or fractions of milliseconds matter) This website gave me some clarity on the theory and purpose: https://www.baeldung.com/linux/irqbalance-modern-hardware There is another dimension, one related to one of the reasons why Apple became known as the "AV professional's workstation" for so long, is that (apparently for fascinating reasons of a historical accident) the multimedia system engineers gained enough influence in the company to allow them to tune the default system configuration to prioritize latency and then system responsiveness over throughput (and even some compromises in system security) to allow for minimal system config in applications requiring both low and consistent (eg low jitter) latency. As it turned out, they got away with doing this for so many years in part because the growing "AV professional wannabe" crowd who just used the system mostly for general (rather than low latency sensitive) applications didn't really notice or care about the hit to throughput or security vulnerability. Noticeable in benchmarks, but not in real life. My first point in saying this is that benchmarks don't necessarily tell us what will give the greatest benefit to the greatest number of users with minimal or no reconfiguration. Eg, who cares if it takes even 10% more milliseconds to transcode an AV file or compile code (on same hardware configred differently) if it means you could also run latency sensitive apps at a consistent (low jitter) amd low latency without having to reconfigure anything and maintaining a generally responsive system? People often just walk away from that anyway (either physically, eg smoke or coffee break, or figuratively, eg task switching, in which case a responsive system would be a higher priority than crunching the numbers slightly faster). My second point is I think obsession over benchmarking risks losing the forest through the trees and really often doesn't account for anything close to real world performance optimizations. But even then it could be argued this is only because we fail to consider important parameters in common performance benchmarks, such as "responsiveness" and "jitter" and "latency" alongside obsessing over throughput and to a lesser extent power management. For me, the core of this question means finally coming to clarity about what "optimal balance" means for the widest variety of desktop and server applications, just as Apple did accidentally a few decades ago with its client systems I think this requires considering a variety of factors instead of an unrealistically narrow idea of "performance" that does not factor in real world user experience. Eg the idea that most users often will appreciate improvements in latency and responsiveness without really much noticing the cost of throughput until someone starts obsessing over throughput benchmarks with relatively minute differences as far as our intuitive or subconscious experience is concerned. Less user frustration from fewer to no buffer overruns or perceived interface hiccups again draw on concepts such as "reliability" and "default breadth of utility" FWIW I think a lot of throughput obsession is about internalized and institutionalized planned obsolescence. It's the primary benchmark of OEM system performance, and a fairly lazy way to measure performance at that. 4min 30sec for a transcoded file would be considered hugely different than 5min 30sec on the same hardware, but for the average user who would just take a smoco break or switch tasks it doesn't matter as long as the system remains responsive and functional. And you'll never get to the transcoding in the first place if the system k
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Hi Christian, I see a lot of strong opinions being given, but aside from the "don't use it in KVM" guidance which appears to be based on GCE's engineering expertise, very little evidence that irqbalance is actually a problem. I think it's true that in the default config, irqbalance can interfere with putting CPUs into higher C states to conserve power. However, I don't see any indication of quantitative analysis showing the impact. Recent versions of irqbalance have a '--powerthresh' argument that can be used to tell irqbalance to rebalance across fewer cores when CPU load is low, to allow some of the cores to be put into a sleep state and conserve power. My own initial testing on my desktop shows that this gets used for all of about 10 seconds at a time every few hours, before the load increases and irqbalance wakes the core back up... I would want any decision to remove irqbalance from the desktop to be based on evidence, not conjecture. At a minimum, I think what I would like to see is output from powertop showing both power consumption and CPU idle stats over a reasonable amount of time (10 minutes?), on a representative client machine, for a 2x3 matrix of configurations: - idle vs normal desktop load - irqbalance disabled vs irqbalance enabled with defaults vs irqbalance enabled with IRQBALANCE_ARGS=--powerthresh=1 System should be rebooted between each of the irqbalance configurations, as I'm not sure what does or doesn't persist in the CPU config after irqbalance exits. I am specifically not going to try to rebut the various webpages referenced here, beyond saying that there's an awful lot of these pages pointing to one other as authoritative sources on irqbalance without there actually being evidence to back them up (and a heaping spoonful of misinformation / outdated information along the way). So if we're going to make a change, there should be due diligence to demonstrate a benefit, it should not be based on Internet hype. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: New Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Thank you for your incredibly thorough analysis of this. Since finding this via bug 2046470, I have tried, without success, to create a test to show any difference in performance or power or whatever between irqbalance enabled/disabled on my Ubuntu 20.04 test server. While my vote carries little weight here, I give it anyhow: A) Change it from an opt-out to an opt-in and remove the dependency from ubuntu-standard Mainly because, and from my own investigation, I agree with: > To me this seems to be a perfect case for a few special images/deployments > known to match the workload profile that needs this to enable it. > It is also more likely that a professional admin of such a large scale machine > (or cluster thereof) can make the opt-in decision and evaluation better than > expecting every user of Ubuntu to think about an opt-out. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: New Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
After all the history I was looking at where we are right now: - irqbalance already is not in ubuntu-cloud-minimal images - irqbalance is in normal cloud images and installed systems via the dep from ubuntu-server -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: New Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
I subscribed a few people directly to get their input. @Steve I've subscribed you after trying to find, refer and summarize all of the past to allow you and anyone else to read into this in one go. I think I'll need your input as Architect and as participant of these discussions right from when they started 14 years ago. @Phil/@John Some past discussions, especially the backpedaling of Debian referred to virtual environments and/or large cloud providers. Is irqbalance anything you got asked to disable (or keep) for their environment? No need to share names, but reasoning or data points would be helpful :-) @Dimitri Is there a more clear "this is what userspace should do in regard to this in 2024" form the kernel? I couldn#t find it, but maybe you know or know who'd know ... @Sebastien Since most problems reported have been around Desktops (to be fair, that could be an coincidence because that is where people do more experiments and have more diverse special cases). But I think it is fair to ask you if requests or discussion like the above have come up towards Desktop that are worth to refer here? Maybe one of you has more details that help to make the decision more clear and easy. Or a gut feeling that is even stronger than mine, strong enough even to pick one of the options? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: New Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
# Summary This discussion was seeminly easier to make the more dedicated to a singluar use case you are - as then you have less "but what if" cases to consider. That wide usage is great for Ubuntu but sometimes delays decisions. List of reasons to remove it from the default dependencies: - Seems to cause issues more often on Desktop environments - cpufreq, thermald and similar struggle to save energy - Impacts due to unepexcted throttling - Conflicts with enabling/disabling threads/cores - Problematic in virtual environments - It is mostly an x86 thing but we pull it in everywhere - It conflicts with manually fine tuned IRQ affinity e.g. in ultra low latency setups - It is less useful on cpus with large and wide shared caches as well as in virtual environments without fix pinning List of reasons to keep it in the set of default dependencies: - Benefits seem mostly for large scale servers - lacking irqbalance can be a performance degradation in some large scale high traffic cases I think from all I've found - old and new - it seems it still has its purpose in some scenarios, but the HW/SW world evolved and it is nowadays less often useful and more often harmful than it was in the past. On the other hand there is almost no clear cut "it is bad and that is why", most issues were individual issues and special cases, nothing that would apply to everyone. And irqbalance still has is purpose, so we should surely keep it around. In a perfect worlds this would have half a year of time or more and two people to run all kinds of workloads on all kinds of HW to compare. But let us be honest that will not happen and that would then also be not be worth the effort. We'll have to decide with what we have. Have the others that switched have more time to evaluate in depth, I do not know. But usually once a significant amount of the ecosystems changed and you lack better data it is better to also follow or common hints and optimizations will no more apply due to being the one outlier in regard to behavior. To me this seems to be a perfect case for a few special images/deployments known to match the workload profile that needs this to enable it. It is also more likely that a professional admin of such a large scale machine (or cluster thereof) can make the opt-in decision and evaluation better than expectint every user of Ubuntu to think about an opt-out. --- Options IMHO: A) Change it from an opt-out to an opt-in and remove the dependency from ubuntu-standard B) Remove it from ubuntu-standard to get rid of it in Desktops and images used in virtual environments. But try to keep it in a place that is mostly used for bare metal which tend to be closer to the kind that benefits more C) Do nothing, keep it as is D) Any of the above, but let us not touch Noble more than half way through the cycle, but do that early in 24.10 to have enough exposure before a release in an LTS. My gut feeling (and it can't be much more without much more time for much deeper investigations) would be (A). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: New Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a O
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
# Actions by Others Times have changes, as mentioned above the kernel learned many new tricks. More new I/O hardware virtual or physical appeared that tries to be smart and thereby sometimes conflict with what irqbalance does. Some are mostly based on the links referred above, the Debian disucssion was more about it being harmful (or at least not helpful) in virtual environments and hence removed from cloud images (we close in on workload specific again). Indeed many projects already removed it from the default - https://github.com/pop-os/iso/pull/288 - https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton/issues/3243 - https://lists.debian.org/debian-cloud/2019/04/msg00040.html -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: New Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
# Integration and maintenance Despite some saying it is for the past only, it is regularly updated and has multiple releases per year throughout all the time [4]. Those updates flow well into Debian and Ubuntu - so it is not a classic "old and outdated" case. And while not much changes in those updates, it means it still learns like about thermal events in 1.9.1 or about isolcpus in 1.0.9. I'm not saying it is super modern doing it all, but it gets updates. Currently this is seeded in ubuntu-standard [1], which is what makes it default installed everywhere. But it is intentionally only a recommends, so the set of people that want to remove it can do so. It was added a long time ago [3] back when multi-core was a rare thing at least for Desktop systems. This was based on a discussion [5] and was related to the kernel [6] actively delegating this to userspace. Debian did a similar change a bit later [17] for the same reasons. But again this was the time of single-core being common. [1]: https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-seeds/+git/platform/tree/standard?h=noble#n19 [3]: https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-seeds/+git/platform/commit/?h=noble&id=dcd02266953547e11221979eb17eb740a76a62b5 [4]: https://github.com/Irqbalance/irqbalance/tags [5]: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2010-January/029939.html [6]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8b8e8c1bf7275eca859fe551dfa484134eaf013b [17]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=577788 ** Bug watch added: github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton/issues #3243 https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton/issues/3243 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: New Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
# Referred Arguments An argument that might not have been so strong more than a decade ago but is much more today is power savings and that is an aspect that comes up over and over. It also had reports of conflicts with power saving [10] and e.g. dynamically disabling/enabling cores which is much more a thing nowadays as long ago this was only reliably working on mainframes anyway. I don't buy the "games need 100%" as even games need their I/O to happen, but OTOH irqbalance just doesn't help much nowadays either as the kernel learned many more tricks to do well - like to name just one all the traffic aware and potentially offloaded rps/xps [2]. And irqbalance is not mutually exclusive with most of those technologies not with RSS [18] nor with kernel policies [15]. Some report about conflicting with their custom tweaking of IRQs [8][16]. It is actually a common conflict between irqbalance being smart [9] and other things like a particular device firmware being smart leading to a conflict of interest. => But TBH that is why it is removable for such rare cases. On one hand it clearly has some impact and various cases of bad impacts by it have come up as well for frame rates [11], stuttering [14] or even network traffic [12]. But on the other hand, there have been reports and cases where a broken irqbalance led to impacted high-performance network traffic [7], so it is not that it is clearly always bad [13]. While we never know how outdated any such source might be, it proves that it is most likely workload and system dependent. Many documentations also sitll refer to it only older RH, Arch [19], ... you'll find it everywhere. It is an interesting case, and the workload dependency leads many discussions to even be contradicting - in one case it saves cpu power in the other it makes it worse. In one it helps traffic in the other is degrades it. That is all a consqeuence of it being workload and system dependent. This back and forther is perfectly encapsulated in this phornix thread [15]. Which quotes interesting other POVs like kernel solutions often being "driver centric" optimizing throughput, but maybe not always the best as policy for the full system as irqbalance pilicies and tunables are configurable. An interim summary might be: """ It could cause rare issues or conflicts, especially on Desktop, but might be still wanted on Servers especially those with a high rate of I/O """ Which is interestingly quite close to the arguments floating around when it was added more than a decade ago (see further below). [2]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/scaling.html [7]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/2038573 [8]: https://groups.google.com/g/gce-discussion/c/Ns8hgOUW9GY [9]: https://docs.xilinx.com/r/en-US/ug1523-x3522-user/Interrupt-Affinity [10]: https://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected [11]: https://askubuntu.com/questions/1067866/ubuntu-18-04-steam-games-frame-rate-drop [12]: https://serverfault.com/questions/410928/irqbalance-on-linux-and-dropped-packets [13]: https://bookofzeus.com/harden-ubuntu/server-setup/disable-irqbalance/ [14]: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/emnu3k/removing_irqbalance_fixed_major_stuttering_in/ [15]: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/hardware/processors-memory/1335986-amd-zen-1-linux-performance-hit-from-retbleed-accumulated-cpu-mitigation-impact/page4 [16]: https://documentation.suse.com/sbp/server-linux/pdf/SBP-performance-tuning_en.pdf [18]: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/6/html/performance_tuning_guide/network-rss [19]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Improving_performance#irqbalance ** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #577788 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=577788 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: New Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdep
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
Hi, this was overlooked for too long but came up in bug 2046470 again which made me see this for the first time. I'd wish we'd have had that even a bit earlier e.g. to release it with mantic and not half way through noble, but still now is the time to still change the next LTS. I needed to make up my mind on this to come to a conclusion and so I wrote a summary mostly for myself, but also for others that I want to ack to the decision as well as for anyone to later be able to understand what changed and why. I must admit that I'm slightly biased, having looked at it ages ago, even before I was more active in Ubuntu development and already wondering if that should be used by default. And yes, some people had a stronger wish to get it out of the default. So as already reported, many have already asked to remove it. I'll try to break up my answers to be more easily referable. ** Also affects: irqbalance (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in irqbalance package in Ubuntu: New Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq/#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/irqbalance/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images
I am using Ubuntu 20.04.1 LTS 64 bit on an Intel mobile CPU and Gnome 3.36.8 (Kernel 5.4.0-58-generic). irqbalance is still installed by default. The frequently used Gnome Extension "cpufreq" shows a permanent warning that irqbalance is active. If I uninstall irqbalance the warning is gone. Since the warning is OK in "cpufreq" the underlying reason should be fixed IMHO (= removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-meta in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833322 Title: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: as per https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/issues/60 Distribution (run cat /etc/os-release): $ cat /etc/os-release NAME="Pop!_OS" VERSION="19.04" ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian PRETTY_NAME="Pop!_OS 19.04" VERSION_ID="19.04" HOME_URL="https://system76.com/pop"; SUPPORT_URL="http://support.system76.com"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://github.com/pop-os/pop/issues"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://system76.com/privacy"; VERSION_CODENAME=disco UBUNTU_CODENAME=disco Related Application and/or Package Version (run apt policy $PACKAGE NAME): $ apt policy irqbalance irqbalance: Installed: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Candidate: 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 Version table: *** 1.5.0-3ubuntu1 500 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu disco/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt rdepends irqbalance irqbalance Reverse Depends: Recommends: ubuntu-standard gce-compute-image-packages Issue/Bug Description: as per konkor/cpufreq#48 and http://konkor.github.io/cpufreq/faq /#irqbalance-detected irqbalance is technically not needed on desktop systems (supposedly it is mainly for servers), and may actually reduce performance and power savings. It appears to provide benefits only to server environments that have relatively-constant loading. If it is truly a server- oriented package, then it shouldn't be installed by default on a desktop/laptop system and shouldn't be included in desktop OS images. Steps to reproduce (if you know): This is potentially an issue with all default installs. Expected behavior: n/a Other Notes: I can safely remove it via "sudo apt purge irqbalance" without any apparent adverse side-effects. If someone is running a situation where they need it, then they always have the option of installing it from the repositories. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/1833322/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
