1 files changed, 15 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:14b/reasoning/performance/1253563 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:14b/reasoning/performance/1253563
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d853b443f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:14b/reasoning/performance/1253563
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+<think>
+Okay, let's see. I have this bug report about QEMU performance with the rng-egd backend being slow. The user mentioned that when using rng-random, it's much faster, around 350k/s compared to only 1k/s with rng-egd.
+
+Hmm, so they set up a VM and used dd to test reading from /dev/hwrng. The speed was really low, but when switching back to rng-random, the performance improved significantly.
+
+They tried modifying rng_egd_chr_can_read() to always return 1 and saw some improvement, around 400k/s. But it's still not as good as rng-random. So they think the issue is that the data isn't being polled in time, causing delays in chr_read() and virtio_notify().
+
+Looking at the categories, I need to pick one. The options are mistranslation, assembly, device, graphic, socket, network, KVM, boot, vnc, debug, files, permissions, performance, kernel, peripherals, hypervisor, or other.
+
+The problem here is about the speed of data transfer with the RNG backend. It's directly affecting the performance of the VM's hardware random number generator. So it's related to how QEMU handles the RNG device and its interaction with the host system.
+
+I think 'performance' would be the right category because it's specifically about the speed issue. The bug is causing a significant drop in performance when using rng-egd compared to another backend. They've identified that the data isn't being read or notified quickly enough, which ties into performance bottlenecks.
+</think>
+
+performance
\ No newline at end of file