[Bug 1833322] Re: Consider removing irqbalance from default install on desktop images

[Mike Ferreira]

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 Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, 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