RE: [PATCH v3 0/4] Implement using Intel QAT to offload ZLIB

[Liu, Yuan1]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 3:16 AM
> To: Wang, Yichen <yichen.wang@bytedance.com>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>; Daniel P. Berrangé
> <berrange@redhat.com>; Eduardo Habkost <eduardo@habkost.net>; Marc-André
> Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>; Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>;
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>; Fabiano Rosas
> <farosas@suse.de>; Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>; Markus Armbruster
> <armbru@redhat.com>; Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>; qemu-
> devel@nongnu.org; Hao Xiang <hao.xiang@linux.dev>; Liu, Yuan1
> <yuan1.liu@intel.com>; Zou, Nanhai <nanhai.zou@intel.com>; Ho-Ren (Jack)
> Chuang <horenchuang@bytedance.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Implement using Intel QAT to offload ZLIB
> 
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 03:34:41PM -0700, Yichen Wang wrote:
> > v3:
> > - Rebase changes on top of master
> > - Merge two patches per Fabiano Rosas's comment
> > - Add versions into comments and documentations
> >
> > v2:
> > - Rebase changes on top of recent multifd code changes.
> > - Use QATzip API 'qzMalloc' and 'qzFree' to allocate QAT buffers.
> > - Remove parameter tuning and use QATzip's defaults for better
> >   performance.
> > - Add parameter to enable QAT software fallback.
> >
> > v1:
> > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2023-12/msg03761.html
> >
> > * Performance
> >
> > We present updated performance results. For circumstantial reasons, v1
> > presented performance on a low-bandwidth (1Gbps) network.
> >
> > Here, we present updated results with a similar setup as before but with
> > two main differences:
> >
> > 1. Our machines have a ~50Gbps connection, tested using 'iperf3'.
> > 2. We had a bug in our memory allocation causing us to only use ~1/2 of
> > the VM's RAM. Now we properly allocate and fill nearly all of the VM's
> > RAM.
> >
> > Thus, the test setup is as follows:
> >
> > We perform multifd live migration over TCP using a VM with 64GB memory.
> > We prepare the machine's memory by powering it on, allocating a large
> > amount of memory (60GB) as a single buffer, and filling the buffer with
> > the repeated contents of the Silesia corpus[0]. This is in lieu of a
> more
> > realistic memory snapshot, which proved troublesome to acquire.
> >
> > We analyze CPU usage by averaging the output of 'top' every second
> > during migration. This is admittedly imprecise, but we feel that it
> > accurately portrays the different degrees of CPU usage of varying
> > compression methods.
> >
> > We present the latency, throughput, and CPU usage results for all of the
> > compression methods, with varying numbers of multifd threads (4, 8, and
> > 16).
> >
> > [0] The Silesia corpus can be accessed here:
> > https://sun.aei.polsl.pl//~sdeor/index.php?page=silesia
> >
> > ** Results
> >
> > 4 multifd threads:
> >
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |method         |time(sec)      |throughput(mbps)|send cpu%|recv
> cpu%|
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |qatzip         | 23.13         | 8749.94        |117.50   |186.49
> |
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |zlib           |254.35         |  771.87        |388.20   |144.40
> |
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |zstd           | 54.52         | 3442.59        |414.59   |149.77
> |
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |none           | 12.45         |43739.60        |159.71   |204.96
> |
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >
> > 8 multifd threads:
> >
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |method         |time(sec)      |throughput(mbps)|send cpu%|recv
> cpu%|
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |qatzip         | 16.91         |12306.52        |186.37   |391.84
> |
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |zlib           |130.11         | 1508.89        |753.86   |289.35
> |
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |zstd           | 27.57         | 6823.23        |786.83   |303.80
> |
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |none           | 11.82         |46072.63        |163.74   |238.56
> |
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >
> > 16 multifd threads:
> >
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |method         |time(sec)      |throughput(mbps)|send cpu%|recv
> cpu%|
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |qatzip         |18.64          |11044.52        | 573.61  |437.65
> |
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |zlib           |66.43          | 2955.79        |1469.68  |567.47
> |
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |zstd           |14.17          |13290.66        |1504.08  |615.33
> |
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >     |none           |16.82          |32363.26        | 180.74  |217.17
> |
> >     |---------------|---------------|----------------|---------|--------
> -|
> >
> > ** Observations
> >
> > - In general, not using compression outperforms using compression in a
> >   non-network-bound environment.
> > - 'qatzip' outperforms other compression workers with 4 and 8 workers,
> >   achieving a ~91% latency reduction over 'zlib' with 4 workers, and a
> > ~58% latency reduction over 'zstd' with 4 workers.
> > - 'qatzip' maintains comparable performance with 'zstd' at 16 workers,
> >   showing a ~32% increase in latency. This performance difference
> > becomes more noticeable with more workers, as CPU compression is highly
> > parallelizable.
> > - 'qatzip' compression uses considerably less CPU than other compression
> >   methods. At 8 workers, 'qatzip' demonstrates a ~75% reduction in
> > compression CPU usage compared to 'zstd' and 'zlib'.
> > - 'qatzip' decompression CPU usage is less impressive, and is even
> >   slightly worse than 'zstd' and 'zlib' CPU usage at 4 and 16 workers.
> 
> Thanks for the results update.
> 
> It looks like the docs/migration/ file is still missing.  It'll be great
> to
> have it in the next version or separately.
> 
> So how it compares with QPL (which got merged already)?  They at least
> look
> like both supported on an Intel platform, so an user whoever wants to
> compress the RAM could start to look at both.  I'm utterly confused on why
> Intel provides these two similar compressors.  It would be great to have
> some answer and perhaps put into the doc.

I would like to explain some of the reasons why we want to merge the 
two QAT and IAA solutions into the community.

1. Although Intel Xeon Sapphire Rapids supports both QAT and IAA, different 
   SKUs support different numbers of QAT and IAA, so some users do not have 
   both QAT and IAA at the same time.

2. QAT products include PCIe cards, which are compatible with older Xeon
   products and other non-Xeon products. And some users have already used QAT
   cards to accelerate live migration.

3. In addition to compression, QAT and IAA also support various other features 
   to better serve different workloads. Here is an introduction to the 
accelerators,
   including usage scenarios of QAT and IAA.
   
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/central-libraries/us/en/documents/2022-12/storage-engines-4th-gen-xeon-brief.pdf

For users who have both QAT and IAA, we recommend the following for choosing a 
live migration solution:

1. If the number of QAT devices is equal to or greater than the number of IAA 
devices 
   and network bandwidth is limited, it is recommended to use the QATZip(QAT) 
solution.

2. In other scenarios, the QPL (IAA) solution can be used first.

> I am honestly curious too on whether are you planning to use it in
> production.  It looks like if the network resources are rich, no-comp is
> mostly always better than qatzip, no matter on total migration time or cpu
> consumption.  I'm pretty surprised that it'll take that much resources
> even
> if the work should have been offloaded to the QAT chips iiuc.
> 
> I think it may not be a problem to merge this series even if it performs
> slower at some criterias.. but I think we may still want to know when this
> should be used, or the good reason this should be merged (if it's not
> about
> it outperforms others).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> >
> >
> > Bryan Zhang (4):
> >   meson: Introduce 'qatzip' feature to the build system
> >   migration: Add migration parameters for QATzip
> >   migration: Introduce 'qatzip' compression method
> >   tests/migration: Add integration test for 'qatzip' compression method
> >
> >  hw/core/qdev-properties-system.c |   6 +-
> >  meson.build                      |  10 +
> >  meson_options.txt                |   2 +
> >  migration/meson.build            |   1 +
> >  migration/migration-hmp-cmds.c   |   8 +
> >  migration/multifd-qatzip.c       | 382 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  migration/multifd.h              |   1 +
> >  migration/options.c              |  57 +++++
> >  migration/options.h              |   2 +
> >  qapi/migration.json              |  38 +++
> >  scripts/meson-buildoptions.sh    |   6 +
> >  tests/qtest/meson.build          |   4 +
> >  tests/qtest/migration-test.c     |  35 +++
> >  13 files changed, 551 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >  create mode 100644 migration/multifd-qatzip.c
> >
> > --
> > Yichen Wang
> >
> 
> --
> Peter Xu