[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZoLmh5L7WrBqtn79@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 07:25:27 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@...hat.com>
Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>,
Laurence Oberman <loberman@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@...hat.com>,
Ming Lei <minlei@...hat.com>, Ondrej Kozina <okozina@...hat.com>,
Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, users@...ts.libvirt.org
Subject: Re: dm-crypt performance regression due to workqueue changes
Hello,
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 02:52:19PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
...
> None the less, I'd suggest that virt-manager should be a explicitly
> asking for sockets=1,cores=N, as that has broader guest OS compatibility.
+1. Multiple sockets is pretty uncommon and often comes with significant
performance implications - e.g. if VM is also splitting memory into N nodes,
that can lead to significant higher overhead during reclaim due to node
imbalances and premature OOMs. If the reported topology is not real, it
makes a lot more sense to keep it basic.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists