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 Ubuntu Touch seeded 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/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
