Offloading vs. Onloading: The Case of CPU Utilization

By Gilad Shainer, Mellanox

June 18, 2016

One of the primary conversations these days in the field of networking is whether it is better to onload network functions onto the CPU or better to offload these functions to the interconnect hardware.

Onloading interconnect technology is easier to build, but the issue becomes the CPU utilization; because the CPU must manage and execute network operations, it has less availability for applications, which is its primary purpose.

Offloading, on the other hand, seeks to overcome performance bottlenecks in the CPU by performing the network functions, as well as complex communications operations, such as collective operations or data aggregation operations, on the data while it moves within the cluster. Data is so distributed these days that a performance bottleneck is created by waiting for data to reach the CPU for analysis. Instead, data can be manipulated wherever it is located within the network by using intelligent network devices that offload functions from the CPU. This has the added advantage of increasing the availability of the CPU for compute functions, improving the overall efficiency of the system.

The issue of CPU utilization is one of the primary points of contention between the two options. How you measure CPU utilization and what type of benchmark you use for the test can provide highly misleading results.

For example, a common mistake is to use a common latency test or message rate test to determine the CPU utilization; however these tests typically require the CPU to constantly look for data (that is, polling data on the memory), which makes it seem as though the CPU is at 100 percent utilization, when actually it is not working at all. Using such a test to determine CPU utilization will produce a false result. In the real world, CPUs do not constantly check for data.

So what is the proper way to measure CPU utilization? Ideally, a data bandwidth test or another test that does not use data polling can be used to determine CPU utilization. Alternatively, if a message rate test is used, the test must be configured to avoid data polling loops in order to produce realistic results. Ultimately, the best option is to compare the number of CPU instructions that were actually executed against the number of CPU instructions that could possibly have been executed during the duration of the test. This produces an accurate percentage of CPU utilization.

Another important element to consider is the type of overhead that is being measured. For example, if the test is designed to measure the impact of the network protocol on CPU utilization, the test should only test data transfers between two servers, and not include additional overheads such as MPI, which is in the software layer. If the purpose is to measure the overhead of a software framework, such as MPI, an MPI test should be used, but in that case, the proper MPIs with the proper offloads must be used, if they exist. Not all MPIs support various hardware-based offloads, so it is important to beware of the test conditions.

So now that it’s clear how to measure CPU utilization accurately, the question remains: Which is better, offloading or onloading? We have conducted multiple data throughput tests between servers connected with EDR InfiniBand and the proprietary Omni-Path alternative.

The tests included send-receive data transfers at the maximum data speed supported by each interconnect (~100Gb/s) while measuring the CPU utilization (Table 1). At the data speed of 100Gb/s, InfiniBand only consumed 0.8 percent CPU utilization, while Omni-Path required 59 percent CPU utilization for the same task. Therefore, the CPU availability for the application in the InfiniBand case is 99.2 percent, while for Omni-Path, only 40.4 percent of the CPU cycles are available for applications. Furthermore, we have measured the CPU frequency in each of the cases, since the CPU can reduce its frequency to save power when it is not required to perform at full speed. For the InfiniBand case, the CPU frequency was able to drop to 59 percent of is nominal frequency to enable power saving. For the Omni-Path case, on the other hand, the CPU was performing at full speed, so no power saving could be achieved.

CPU Utilization Comparison

Table 1 – CPU Utilization Comparison

The tool that was used to review the CPU stats was the Intel Performance Counter Monitor toolset. The tool provides a richer set of measurements that provide a detailed system status. Utilizing this tool, we found that Omni-Path did not actually reach the 100G speed, but fell a little short at 95Gb/s. The AFREQ stats reported the CPU frequency that was dynamically set during the test. We were also able to view the number of iterations and active cycles used per the different interconnect protocols (Table 2).

Intel Performance Counter Monitor Tool stats

Table 2 – Intel Performance Counter Monitor Tool stats

Moreover, when InfiniBand is implemented on intelligent devices within the Co-Design architecture, it can further reduce overhead on the CPU by offloading MPI operations as well. Of course, to measure this, the test must be sure to include the software layer in the benchmark such that an accurate real-world result is received. We plan to perform various further tests at different applications levels in the future to demonstrate the significant advantages of InfiniBand.

Ultimately, InfiniBand implements offloading specifically in order to reduce the overhead on the CPU, and, as the testing herein indicates, it works exactly as it was designed. If someone shows results that indicate otherwise, it is worthwhile to investigate the circumstances of the testing to better understand how the results were achieved. In all likelihood, the results are misleading and do not accurately reflect real-world conditions.

Subscribe to HPCwire's Weekly Update!

Be the most informed person in the room! Stay ahead of the tech trends with industy updates delivered to you every week!

InfiniBand Still Tops in Supercomputing

July 19, 2018

In the competitive global HPC landscape, system and processor vendors, nations and end user sites certainly get a lot of attention--deservedly so--but more than ever, the network plays a crucial role. While fast, perform Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

HPC for Life: Genomics, Brain Research, and Beyond

July 19, 2018

During the past few decades, the life sciences have witnessed one landmark discovery after another with the aid of HPC, paving the way toward a new era of personalized treatments based on an individual’s genetic makeup Read more…

By Warren Froelich

WCRP’s New Strategic Plan for Climate Research Highlights the Importance of HPC

July 19, 2018

As climate modeling increasingly leverages exascale computing and researchers warn of an impending computing gap in climate research, the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) is developing its new Strategic Plan – and high-performance computing is slated to play a critical role. Read more…

By Oliver Peckham

HPE Extreme Performance Solutions

Introducing the First Integrated System Management Software for HPC Clusters from HPE

How do you manage your complex, growing cluster environments? Answer that big challenge with the new HPC cluster management solution: HPE Performance Cluster Manager. Read more…

IBM Accelerated Insights

Are Your Software Licenses Impeding Your Productivity?

In my previous article, Improving chip yield rates with cognitive manufacturing, I highlighted the costs associated with semiconductor manufacturing, and how cognitive methods can yield benefits in both design and manufacture.  Read more…

U.S. Exascale Computing Project Releases Software Technology Progress Report

July 19, 2018

As is often noted the race to exascale computing isn’t just about hardware. This week the U.S. Exascale Computing Project (ECP) released its latest Software Technology (ST) Capability Assessment Report detailing progress so far. Read more…

By John Russell

InfiniBand Still Tops in Supercomputing

July 19, 2018

In the competitive global HPC landscape, system and processor vendors, nations and end user sites certainly get a lot of attention--deservedly so--but more than Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

HPC for Life: Genomics, Brain Research, and Beyond

July 19, 2018

During the past few decades, the life sciences have witnessed one landmark discovery after another with the aid of HPC, paving the way toward a new era of perso Read more…

By Warren Froelich

D-Wave Breaks New Ground in Quantum Simulation

July 16, 2018

Last Friday D-Wave scientists and colleagues published work in Science which they say represents the first fulfillment of Richard Feynman’s 1982 notion that Read more…

By John Russell

AI Thought Leaders on Capitol Hill

July 14, 2018

On Thursday, July 12, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology heard from four academic and industry leaders – representatives from Berkeley Lab, Argonne Lab, GE Global Research and Carnegie Mellon University – on the opportunities springing from the intersection of machine learning and advanced-scale computing. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

HPC Serves as a ‘Rosetta Stone’ for the Information Age

July 12, 2018

In an age defined and transformed by its data, several large-scale scientific instruments around the globe might be viewed as a ‘mother lode’ of precious data. With names seemingly created for a ‘techno-speak’ glossary, these interferometers, cyclotrons, sequencers, solenoids, satellite altimeters, and cryo-electron microscopes are churning out data in previously unthinkable and seemingly incomprehensible quantities -- billions, trillions and quadrillions of bits and bytes of electro-magnetic code. Read more…

By Warren Froelich

Tsinghua Powers Through ISC18 Field

July 10, 2018

Tsinghua University topped all other competitors at the ISC18 Student Cluster Competition with an overall score of 88.43 out of 100. This gives Tsinghua their s Read more…

By Dan Olds

HPE, EPFL Launch Blue Brain 5 Supercomputer

July 10, 2018

HPE and the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausannne (EPFL) Blue Brain Project yesterday introduced Blue Brain 5, a new supercomputer built by HPE, which displ Read more…

By John Russell

Pumping New Life into HPC Clusters, the Case for Liquid Cooling

July 10, 2018

High Performance Computing (HPC) faces some daunting challenges in the coming years as traditional, industry-standard systems push the boundaries of data center Read more…

By Scott Tease

Leading Solution Providers

SC17 Booth Video Tours Playlist

Altair @ SC17


AMD @ SC17


ASRock Rack @ SC17

ASRock Rack



DDN Storage @ SC17

DDN Storage

Huawei @ SC17


IBM @ SC17


IBM Power Systems @ SC17

IBM Power Systems

Intel @ SC17


Lenovo @ SC17


Mellanox Technologies @ SC17

Mellanox Technologies

Microsoft @ SC17


Penguin Computing @ SC17

Penguin Computing

Pure Storage @ SC17

Pure Storage

Supericro @ SC17


Tyan @ SC17


Univa @ SC17


  • arrow
  • Click Here for More Headlines
  • arrow
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
Share This