More than 1,900 people worked hard in this year’s PyTorch Annual Hackathon to create unique tools and applications for PyTorch developers and researchers.

Notice: None of the projects submitted to the hackathon are associated with or offered by Meta Platforms, Inc.

This year, participants could enter their projects into following three categories:

• PyTorch Developer Tools: a tool or library for improving productivity and efficiency for PyTorch researchers and developers.
• Web and Mobile Applications Powered by PyTorch: a web or mobile interface and/or an embedded device built using PyTorch.
• PyTorch Responsible AI Development Tools: a tool, library, or web/mobile app to support researchers and developers in creating responsible AI that factors in fairness, security, privacy, and more throughout its entire development process.

The virtual hackathon ran from September 8 through November 2, 2021, with more than 1,900 registered participants from 110 countries, submitting a total of 65 projects. Entrants were judged on their idea’s quality, originality, potential impact, and how well they implemented it. All projects can be viewed here.

Meet the winners of each category below!

PYTORCH DEVELOPER TOOLS

First Place: RaNNC

RaNNC is a middleware to automate hybrid model/data parallelism for training very large-scale neural networks capable of training 100 billion parameter models without any manual tuning.

Second Place: XiTorch

XiTorch provides first and higher order gradients of functional routines, such as optimization, rootfinder, and ODE solver. It also contains operations for implicit linear operators (e.g. large matrix that is expressed only by its matrix-vector multiplication) such as symmetric eigen-decomposition, linear solve, and singular value decomposition.

Third Place: TorchLiberator

TorchLiberator automates model surgery, finding the maximum correspondence between weights in two networks.

Honorable Mentions

• PADL manages your entire PyTorch work flow with a single python abstraction and a beautiful functional API, so there’s no more complex configuration or juggling preprocessing, postprocessing and forward passes.
• PyTree is a PyTorch package for recursive neural networks that provides highly generic recursive neural network implementations as well as efficient batching methods.
• IndicLP makes it easier for developers and researchers to build applications and models in Indian Languages, thus making NLP a more diverse field.

WEB/MOBILE APPLICATIONS POWERED BY PYTORCH

First Place: PyTorch Driving Guardian

PyTorch Driving Guardian is a tool that monitors driver alertness, emotional state, and potential blind spots on the road.

Second Place: Kronia

Kronia is an Android mobile app built to maximize the harvest outputs for farmers.

Third Place: Heyoh camera for Mac

Heyoh is a Mac virtual camera for Zoom and Meets that augments live video by recognizing hand gestures and smiles and shows animated effects to other video participants.

Honorable Mentions

• Mamma AI is a tool that helps doctors with the breast cancer identification process by identifying areas likely to have cancer using ultrasonic and x-ray images.
• AgingClock is a tool that predicts biological age first with methylation genome data, then blood test data and eventually with multimodal omics and lifestyle data.
• Iris is an open source photos platform which is more of an alternative of Google Photos that includes features such as Listing photos, Detecting Categories, Detecting and Classifying Faces from Photos, Detecting and Clustering by Location and Things in Photos.

PYTORCH RESPONSIBLE AI DEVELOPMENT TOOLS

First Place: FairWell

FairWell aims to address model bias on specific groups of people by allowing data scientists to evaluate their dataset and model predictions and take steps to make their datasets more inclusive and their models less biased.

Second Place: promp2slip

Promp2slip is a library that tests the ethics of language models by using natural adversarial texts.

Third Place: Phorch

Phorch adversarially attacks the data using FIGA (Feature Importance Guided Attack) and creates 3 different attack sets of data based on certain parameters. These features are utilized to implement adversarial training as a defense against FIGA using neural net architecture in PyTorch.

Honorable Mentions

• Greenops helps to measure the footprints of deep learning models at training, testing and evaluating to reduce energy consumption and carbon footprints.
• Xaitk-saliency is an open-source, explainable AI toolkit for visual saliency algorithm interfaces and implementations, built for analytic and autonomy applications.

Thank you,

Team PyTorch

Read More

A few weeks ago, TorchVision v0.11 was released packed with numerous new primitives, models and training recipe improvements which allowed achieving state-of-the-art (SOTA) results. The project was dubbed “TorchVision with Batteries Included” and aimed to modernize our library. We wanted to enable researchers to reproduce papers and conduct research more easily by using common building blocks. Moreover, we aspired to provide the necessary tools to Applied ML practitioners to train their models on their own data using the same SOTA techniques as in research. Finally, we wanted to refresh our pre-trained weights and offer better off-the-shelf models to our users, hoping that they would build better applications.

Though there is still much work to be done, we wanted to share with you some exciting results from the above work. We will showcase how one can use the new tools included in TorchVision to achieve state-of-the-art results on a highly competitive and well-studied architecture such as ResNet50 [1]. We will share the exact recipe used to improve our baseline by over 4.5 accuracy points to reach a final top-1 accuracy of 80.7% and share the journey for deriving the new training process. Moreover, we will show that this recipe generalizes well to other model variants and families. We hope that the above will influence future research for developing stronger generalizable training methodologies and will inspire the community to adopt and contribute to our efforts.

The Results

Using our new training recipe found on ResNet50, we’ve refreshed the pre-trained weights of the following models:

Note that the accuracy of all models except RetNet50 can be further improved by adjusting their training parameters slightly, but our focus was to have a single robust recipe which performs well for all.

There are currently two ways to use the latest weights of the model.

Using the Multi-pretrained weight API

We are currently working on a new prototype mechanism which will extend the model builder methods of TorchVision to support multiple weights. Along with the weights, we store useful meta-data (such as the labels, the accuracy, links to recipe etc) and the preprocessing transforms necessary for using the models. Example:

  from PIL import Image
  from torchvision import prototype as P
  img = Image.open("test/assets/encode_jpeg/grace_hopper_517x606.jpg")
   
  # Initialize model
  weights = P.models.ResNet50Weights.ImageNet1K_RefV2
  model = P.models.resnet50(weights=weights)
  model.eval()
   
  # Initialize inference transforms
  preprocess = weights.transforms()
   
  # Apply inference preprocessing transforms
  batch = preprocess(img).unsqueeze(0)
  prediction = model(batch).squeeze(0).softmax(0)
   
  # Make predictions
  label = prediction.argmax().item()
  score = prediction[label].item()
   
  # Use meta to get the labels
  category_name = weights.meta['categories'][label]
  print(f"{category_name}: {100 * score}%")

Using the legacy API

Those who don’t want to use a prototype API have the option of accessing the new weights via the legacy API using the following approach:

  from torchvision.models import resnet
   
  # Overwrite the URL of the previous weights
  resnet.model_urls["resnet50"] = "https://download.pytorch.org/models/resnet50-f46c3f97.pth"
   
  # Initialize the model using the legacy API
  model = resnet.resnet50(pretrained=True)
   
  # TODO: Apply preprocessing + call the model
  # ...

The Training Recipe

Our goal was to use the newly introduced primitives of TorchVision to derive a new strong training recipe which achieves state-of-the-art results for the vanilla ResNet50 architecture when trained from scratch on ImageNet with no additional external data. Though by using architecture specific tricks [2] one could further improve the accuracy, we’ve decided not to include them so that the recipe can be used in other architectures. Our recipe heavily focuses on simplicity and builds upon work by FAIR [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]]. Our findings align with the parallel study of Wightman et al. [7], who also report major accuracy improvements by focusing on the training recipes.

Without further ado, here are the main parameters of our recipe:

  # Optimizer & LR scheme
  ngpus=8,
  batch_size=128,  # per GPU

  epochs=600, 
  opt='sgd',  
  momentum=0.9,

  lr=0.5, 
  lr_scheduler='cosineannealinglr', 
  lr_warmup_epochs=5, 
  lr_warmup_method='linear', 
  lr_warmup_decay=0.01, 


  # Regularization and Augmentation
  weight_decay=2e-05, 
  norm_weight_decay=0.0,

  label_smoothing=0.1, 
  mixup_alpha=0.2, 
  cutmix_alpha=1.0, 
  auto_augment='ta_wide', 
  random_erase=0.1, 


  # EMA configuration
  model_ema=True, 
  model_ema_steps=32, 
  model_ema_decay=0.99998, 


  # Resizing
  interpolation='bilinear', 
  val_resize_size=232, 
  val_crop_size=224, 
  train_crop_size=176,

Using our standard training reference script, we can train a ResNet50 using the following command:

torchrun --nproc_per_node=8 train.py --model resnet50 --batch-size 128 --lr 0.5 
--lr-scheduler cosineannealinglr --lr-warmup-epochs 5 --lr-warmup-method linear 
--auto-augment ta_wide --epochs 600 --random-erase 0.1 --weight-decay 0.00002 
--norm-weight-decay 0.0 --label-smoothing 0.1 --mixup-alpha 0.2 --cutmix-alpha 1.0 
--train-crop-size 176 --model-ema --val-resize-size 232

Methodology

There are a few principles we kept in mind during our explorations:

1. Training is a stochastic process and the validation metric we try to optimize is a random variable. This is due to the random weight initialization scheme employed and the existence of random effects during the training process. This means that we can’t do a single run to assess the effect of a recipe change. The standard practice is doing multiple runs (usually 3 to 5) and studying the summarization stats (such as mean, std, median, max, etc).
2. There is usually a significant interaction between different parameters, especially for techniques that focus on Regularization and reducing overfitting. Thus changing the value of one can have effects on the optimal configurations of others. To account for that one can either adopt a greedy search approach (which often leads to suboptimal results but tractable experiments) or apply grid search (which leads to better results but is computationally expensive). In this work, we used a mixture of both.
3. Techniques that are non-deterministic or introduce noise usually require longer training cycles to improve model performance. To keep things tractable, we initially used short training cycles (small number of epochs) to decide which paths can be eliminated early and which should be explored using longer training.
4. There is a risk of overfitting the validation dataset [8] because of the repeated experiments. To mitigate some of the risk, we apply only training optimizations that provide a significant accuracy improvements and use K-fold cross validation to verify optimizations done on the validation set. Moreover we confirm that our recipe ingredients generalize well on other models for which we didn’t optimize the hyper-parameters.

Break down of key accuracy improvements

As discussed in earlier blogposts, training models is not a journey of monotonically increasing accuracies and the process involves a lot of backtracking. To quantify the effect of each optimization, below we attempt to show-case an idealized linear journey of deriving the final recipe starting from the original recipe of TorchVision. We would like to clarify that this is an oversimplification of the actual path we followed and thus it should be taken with a grain of salt. 

In the table below, we provide a summary of the performance of stacked incremental improvements on top of Baseline. Unless denoted otherwise, we report the model with best Acc@1 out of 3 runs:

*The tuning of the inference size was done on top of the last model. See below for details.

Baseline

Our baseline is the previously released ResNet50 model of TorchVision. It was trained with the following recipe:

  # Optimizer & LR scheme
  ngpus=8,
  batch_size=32,  # per GPU

  epochs=90, 
  opt='sgd',  
  momentum=0.9,

  lr=0.1, 
  lr_scheduler='steplr', 
  lr_step_size=30, 
  lr_gamma=0.1, 


  # Regularization
  weight_decay=1e-4,


  # Resizing
  interpolation='bilinear', 
  val_resize_size=256, 
  val_crop_size=224, 
  train_crop_size=224,

Most of the above parameters are the defaults on our training scripts. We will start building on top of this baseline by introducing optimizations until we gradually arrive at the final recipe.

LR optimizations

There are a few parameter updates we can apply to improve both the accuracy and the speed of our training. This can be achieved by increasing the batch size and tuning the LR. Another common method is to apply warmup and gradually increase our learning rate. This is beneficial especially when we use very high learning rates and helps with the stability of the training in the early epochs. Finally, another optimization is to apply Cosine Schedule to adjust our LR during the epochs. A big advantage of cosine is that there are no hyper-parameters to optimize, which cuts down our search space.

Here are the additional optimizations applied on top of the baseline recipe. Note that we’ve run multiple experiments to determine the optimal configuration of the parameters:

  batch_size=128,  # per GPU

  lr=0.5, 
  lr_scheduler='cosineannealinglr', 
  lr_warmup_epochs=5, 
  lr_warmup_method='linear', 
  lr_warmup_decay=0.01,

The above optimizations increase our top-1 Accuracy by 0.364 points comparing to the baseline. Note that in order to combine the different LR strategies we use the newly introduced SequentialLR scheduler.

TrivialAugment

The original model was trained using basic augmentation transforms such as Random resized crops and horizontal flips. An easy way to improve our accuracy is to apply more complex “Automatic-Augmentation” techniques. The one that performed best for us is TrivialAugment [9], which is extremely simple and can be considered “parameter free”, which means it can help us cut down our search space further.

Here is the update applied on top of the previous step:

auto_augment='ta_wide',

The use of TrivialAugment increased our top-1 Accuracy by 0.312 points compared to the previous step.

Long Training

Longer training cycles are beneficial when our recipe contains ingredients that behave randomly. More specifically as we start adding more and more techniques that introduce noise, increasing the number of epochs becomes crucial. Note that at early stages of our exploration, we used relatively short cycles of roughly 200 epochs which was later increased to 400 as we started narrowing down most of the parameters and finally increased to 600 epochs at the final versions of the recipe.

Below we see the update applied on top of the earlier steps:

epochs=600,

This further increases our top-1 Accuracy by 1.8 points on top of the previous step. This is the biggest increase we will observe in this iterative process. It’s worth noting that the effect of this single optimization is overstated and somehow misleading. Just increasing the number of epochs on top of the old baseline won’t yield such significant improvements. Nevertheless the combination of the LR optimizations with strong Augmentation strategies helps the model benefit from longer cycles. It’s also worth mentioning that the reason we introduce the lengthy training cycles so early in the process is because in the next steps we will introduce techniques that require significantly more epochs to provide good results.

Random Erasing

Another data augmentation technique known to help the classification accuracy is Random Erasing [10], [11]]. Often paired with Automatic Augmentation methods, it usually yields additional improvements in accuracy due to its regularization effect. In our experiments we tuned only the probability of applying the method via a grid search and found that it’s beneficial to keep its probability at low levels, typically around 10%. 

Here is the extra parameter introduced on top of the previous:

random_erase=0.1,

Applying Random Erasing increases our Acc@1 by further 0.190 points.

Label Smoothing

A good technique to reduce overfitting is to stop the model from becoming overconfident. This can be achieved by softening the ground truth using Label Smoothing [12]. There is a single parameter which controls the degree of smoothing (the higher the stronger) that we need to specify. Though optimizing it via grid search is possible, we found that values around 0.05-0.15 yield similar results, so to avoid overfitting it we used the same value as on the paper that introduced it.

Below we can find the extra config added on this step:

label_smoothing=0.1,

We use PyTorch’s newly introduced CrossEntropyLoss label_smoothing parameter and that increases our accuracy by an additional 0.318 points.

Mixup and Cutmix

Two data augmentation techniques often used to produce SOTA results are Mixup and Cutmix [13], [14]]. They both provide strong regularization effects by softening not only the labels but also the images. In our setup we found it beneficial to apply one of them randomly with equal probability. Each is parameterized with a hyperparameter alpha, which controls the shape of the Beta distribution from which the smoothing probability is sampled. We did a very limited grid search, focusing primarily on common values proposed on the papers. 

Below you will find the optimal values for the alpha parameters of the two techniques:

mixup_alpha=0.2, 
cutmix_alpha=1.0,

Applying mixup increases our accuracy by 0.118 points and combining it with cutmix improves it by additional 0.278 points.

Weight Decay tuning

Our standard recipe uses L2 regularization to reduce overfitting. The Weight Decay parameter controls the degree of the regularization (the larger the stronger) and is applied universally to all learned parameters of the model by default. In this recipe, we apply two optimizations to the standard approach. First we perform grid search to tune the parameter of weight decay and second we disable weight decay for the parameters of the normalization layers. 

Below you can find the optimal configuration of weight decay for our recipe:

weight_decay=2e-05, 
norm_weight_decay=0.0,

The above update improves our accuracy by a further 0.526 points, providing additional experimental evidence for a known fact that tuning weight decay has significant effects on the performance of the model. Our approach for separating the Normalization parameters from the rest was inspired by ClassyVision’s approach.

FixRes mitigations

An important property identified early in our experiments is the fact that the models performed significantly better if the resolution used during validation was increased from the 224×224 of training. This effect is studied in detail on the FixRes paper 5 and two mitigations are proposed: a) one could try to reduce the training resolution so that the accuracy on the validation resolution is maximized or b) one could fine-tune the model on a two-phase training so that it adjusts on the target resolution. Since we didn’t want to introduce a 2-phase training, we went for option a). This means that we reduced the train crop size from 224 and used grid search to find the one that maximizes the validation on resolution of 224×224.

Below you can see the optimal value used on our recipe:

val_crop_size=224, 
train_crop_size=176,

The above optimization improved our accuracy by an additional 0.160 points and sped up our training by 10%. 

It’s worth noting that the FixRes effect still persists, meaning that the model continues to perform better on validation when we increase the resolution. Moreover, further reducing the training crop-size actually hurts the accuracy. This intuitively makes sense because one can only reduce the resolution so much before critical details start disappearing from the picture. Finally, we should note that the above FixRes mitigation seems to benefit models with similar depth to ResNet50. Deeper variants with larger receptive fields seem to be slightly negatively affected (typically by 0.1-0.2 points). Hence we consider this part of the recipe optional. Below we visualize the performance of the best available checkpoints (with the full recipe) for models trained with 176 and 224 resolution:

Exponential Moving Average (EMA)

EMA is a technique that allows one to push the accuracy of a model without increasing its complexity or inference time. It performs an exponential moving average on the model weights and this leads to increased accuracy and more stable models. The averaging happens every few iterations and its decay parameter was tuned via grid search. 

Below you can see the optimal values for our recipe:

model_ema=True, 
model_ema_steps=32, 
model_ema_decay=0.99998,

The use of EMA increases our accuracy by 0.254 points comparing to the previous step. Note that TorchVision’s EMA implementation is build on top of PyTorch’s AveragedModel class with the key difference being that it averages not only the model parameters but also its buffers. Moreover, we have adopted tricks from Pycls which allow us to parameterize the decay in a way that doesn’t depend on the number of epochs.

Inference Resize tuning

Unlike all other steps of the process which involved training models with different parameters, this optimization was done on top of the final model. During inference, the image is resized to a specific resolution and then a central 224×224 crop is taken from it. The original recipe used a resize size of 256, which caused a similar discrepancy as the one described on the FixRes paper [5]. By bringing this resize value closer to the target inference resolution, one can improve the accuracy. To select the value we run a short grid search between interval [224, 256] with step of 8. To avoid overfitting, the value was selected using half of the validation set and confirmed using the other half.

Below you can see the optimal value used on our recipe:

--val-resize-size 232

The above is the final optimization which improved our accuracy by 0.224 points. It’s worth noting that the optimal value for ResNet50 works also best for ResNet101, ResNet152 and ResNeXt50, which hints that it generalizes across models:

Optimizations that were tested but not adopted

During the early stages of our research, we experimented with additional techniques, configurations and optimizations. Since our target was to keep our recipe as simple as possible, we decided not to include anything that didn’t provide a significant improvement. Here are a few approaches that we took but didn’t make it to our final recipe:

• Optimizers: Using more complex optimizers such as Adam, RMSProp or SGD with Nesterov momentum didn’t provide significantly better results than vanilla SGD with momentum.
• LR Schedulers: We tried different LR Scheduler schemes such as StepLR and Exponential. Though the latter tends to work better with EMA, it often requires additional hyper-parameters such as defining the minimum LR to work well. Instead, we just use cosine annealing decaying the LR up to zero and choose the checkpoint with the highest accuracy.
• Automatic Augmentations: We’ve tried different augmentation strategies such as AutoAugment and RandAugment. None of these outperformed the simpler parameter-free TrivialAugment.
• Interpolation: Using bicubic or nearest interpolation didn’t provide significantly better results than bilinear.
• Normalization layers: Using Sync Batch Norm didn’t yield significantly better results than using the regular Batch Norm.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Piotr Dollar, Mannat Singh and Hugo Touvron for providing their insights and feedback during the development of the recipe and for their previous research work on which our recipe is based on. Their support was invaluable for achieving the above result. Moreover, we would like to thank Prabhat Roy, Kai Zhang, Yiwen Song, Joel Schlosser, Ilqar Ramazanli, Francisco Massa, Mannat Singh, Xiaoliang Dai, Samuel Gabriel and Allen Goodman for their contributions to the Batteries Included project.

References

1. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, Jian Sun. “Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition”.
2. Tong He, Zhi Zhang, Hang Zhang, Zhongyue Zhang, Junyuan Xie, Mu Li. “Bag of Tricks for Image Classification with Convolutional Neural Networks”
3. Piotr Dollár, Mannat Singh, Ross Girshick. “Fast and Accurate Model Scaling”
4. Tete Xiao, Mannat Singh, Eric Mintun, Trevor Darrell, Piotr Dollár, Ross Girshick. “Early Convolutions Help Transformers See Better”
5. Hugo Touvron, Andrea Vedaldi, Matthijs Douze, Hervé Jégou. “Fixing the train-test resolution discrepancy
6. Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Matthijs Douze, Francisco Massa, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Hervé Jégou. “Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention”
7. Ross Wightman, Hugo Touvron, Hervé Jégou. “ResNet strikes back: An improved training procedure in timm”
8. Benjamin Recht, Rebecca Roelofs, Ludwig Schmidt, Vaishaal Shankar. “Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?”
9. Samuel G. Müller, Frank Hutter. “TrivialAugment: Tuning-free Yet State-of-the-Art Data Augmentation”
10. Zhun Zhong, Liang Zheng, Guoliang Kang, Shaozi Li, Yi Yang. “Random Erasing Data Augmentation”
11. Terrance DeVries, Graham W. Taylor. “Improved Regularization of Convolutional Neural Networks with Cutout”
12. Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, Zbigniew Wojna. “Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision”
13. Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N. Dauphin, David Lopez-Paz. “mixup: Beyond Empirical Risk Minimization”
14. Sangdoo Yun, Dongyoon Han, Seong Joon Oh, Sanghyuk Chun, Junsuk Choe, Youngjoon Yoo. “CutMix: Regularization Strategy to Train Strong Classifiers with Localizable Features”

Read More

Introduction

FX based feature extraction is a new TorchVision utility that lets us access intermediate transformations of an input during the forward pass of a PyTorch Module. It does so by symbolically tracing the forward method to produce a graph where each node represents a single operation. Nodes are named in a human-readable manner such that one may easily specify which nodes they want to access.

Did that all sound a little complicated? Not to worry as there’s a little in this article for everyone. Whether you’re a beginner or an advanced deep-vision practitioner, chances are you will want to know about FX feature extraction. If you still want more background on feature extraction in general, read on. If you’re already comfortable with that and want to know how to do it in PyTorch, skim ahead to Existing Methods in PyTorch: Pros and Cons. And if you already know about the challenges of doing feature extraction in PyTorch, feel free to skim forward to FX to The Rescue.

A Recap On Feature Extraction

We’re all used to the idea of having a deep neural network (DNN) that takes inputs and produces outputs, and we don’t necessarily think of what happens in between. Let’s just consider a ResNet-50 classification model as an example:

Figure 1: ResNet-50 takes an image of a bird and transforms that into the abstract concept “bird”. Source: Bird image from ImageNet.

We know though, that there are many sequential “layers” within the ResNet-50 architecture that transform the input step-by-step. In Figure 2 below, we peek under the hood to show the layers within ResNet-50, and we also show the intermediate transformations of the input as it passes through those layers.

Figure 2: ResNet-50 transforms the input image in multiple steps. Conceptually, we may access the intermediate transformation of the image after each one of these steps. Source: Bird image from ImageNet.

Existing Methods In PyTorch: Pros and Cons

There were already a few ways of doing feature extraction in PyTorch prior to FX based feature extraction being introduced.

To illustrate these, let’s consider a simple convolutional neural network that does the following

• Applies several “blocks” each with several convolution layers within.
• After several blocks, it uses a global average pool and flatten operation.
• Finally it uses a single output classification layer.

import torch
from torch import nn


class ConvBlock(nn.Module):
   """
   Applies `num_layers` 3x3 convolutions each followed by ReLU then downsamples
   via 2x2 max pool.
   """

   def __init__(self, num_layers, in_channels, out_channels):
       super().__init__()
       self.convs = nn.ModuleList(
           [nn.Sequential(
               nn.Conv2d(in_channels if i==0 else out_channels, out_channels, 3, padding=1),
               nn.ReLU()
            )
            for i in range(num_layers)]
       )
       self.downsample = nn.MaxPool2d(kernel_size=2, stride=2)
      
   def forward(self, x):
       for conv in self.convs:
           x = conv(x)
       x = self.downsample(x)
       return x
      

class CNN(nn.Module):
   """
   Applies several ConvBlocks each doubling the number of channels, and
   halving the feature map size, before taking a global average and classifying.
   """

   def __init__(self, in_channels, num_blocks, num_classes):
       super().__init__()
       first_channels = 64
       self.blocks = nn.ModuleList(
           [ConvBlock(
               2 if i==0 else 3,
               in_channels=(in_channels if i == 0 else first_channels*(2**(i-1))),
               out_channels=first_channels*(2**i))
            for i in range(num_blocks)]
       )
       self.global_pool = nn.AdaptiveAvgPool2d((1, 1))
       self.cls = nn.Linear(first_channels*(2**(num_blocks-1)), num_classes)

   def forward(self, x):
       for block in self.blocks:
           x = block(x)
       x = self.global_pool(x)
       x = x.flatten(1)
       x = self.cls(x)
       return x


model = CNN(3, 4, 10)
out = model(torch.zeros(1, 3, 32, 32))  # This will be the final logits over classes

Let’s say we want to get the final feature map before global average pooling. We could do the following:

Modify the forward method

def forward(self, x):
   for block in self.blocks:
       x = block(x)
   self.final_feature_map = x
   x = self.global_pool(x)
   x = x.flatten(1)
   x = self.cls(x)
   return x

Or return it directly:

def forward(self, x):
   for block in self.blocks:
       x = block(x)
   final_feature_map = x
   x = self.global_pool(x)
   x = x.flatten(1)
   x = self.cls(x)
   return x, final_feature_map

That looks pretty easy. But there are some downsides here which all stem from the same underlying issue: that is, modifying the source code is not ideal:

• It’s not always easy to access and change given the practical considerations of a project.
• If we want flexibility (switching feature extraction on or off, or having variations on it), we need to further adapt the source code to support that.
• It’s not always just a question of inserting a single line of code. Think about how you would go about getting the feature map from one of the intermediate blocks with the way I’ve written this module.
• Overall, we’d rather avoid the overhead of maintaining source code for a model, when we actually don’t need to change anything about how it works.

One can see how this downside can start to get a lot more thorny when dealing with larger, more complicated models, and trying to get at features from within nested submodules.

Write a new module using the parameters from the original one

Following on the example from above, say we want to get a feature map from each block. We could write a new module like so:

class CNNFeatures(nn.Module):
   def __init__(self, backbone):
       super().__init__()
       self.blocks = backbone.blocks

   def forward(self, x):
       feature_maps = []
       for block in self.blocks:
           x = block(x)
           feature_maps.append(x)
       return feature_maps


backbone = CNN(3, 4, 10)
model = CNNFeatures(backbone)
out = model(torch.zeros(1, 3, 32, 32))  # This is now a list of Tensors, each representing a feature map

In fact, this is much like the method that TorchVision used internally to make many of its detection models.

Although this approach solves some of the issues with modifying the source code directly, there are still some major downsides:

• It’s only really straight-forward to access the outputs of top-level submodules. Dealing with nested submodules rapidly becomes complicated.
• We have to be careful not to miss any important operations in between the input and the output. We introduce potential for errors in transcribing the exact functionality of the original module to the new module.

Overall, this method and the last both have the complication of tying in feature extraction with the model’s source code itself. Indeed, if we examine the source code for TorchVision models we might suspect that some of the design choices were influenced by the desire to use them in this way for downstream tasks.

Use hooks

Hooks move us away from the paradigm of writing source code, towards one of specifying outputs. Considering our toy CNN example above, and the goal of getting feature maps for each layer, we could use hooks like this:

model = CNN(3, 4, 10)
feature_maps = []  # This will be a list of Tensors, each representing a feature map

def hook_feat_map(mod, inp, out):
	feature_maps.append(out)

for block in model.blocks:
	block.register_forward_hook(hook_feat_map)

out = model(torch.zeros(1, 3, 32, 32))  # This will be the final logits over classes

Now we have full flexibility in terms of accessing nested submodules, and we free ourselves of the responsibilities of fiddling with the source code. But this approach comes with its own downsides:

• We can only apply hooks to modules. If we have functional operations (reshape, view, functional non-linearities, etc) for which we want the outputs, hooks won’t work directly on them.
• We have not modified anything about the source code, so the whole forward pass is executed, regardless of the hooks. If we only need to access early features without any need for the final output, this could result in a lot of useless computation.
• Hooks are not TorchScript friendly.

Here’s a summary of the different methods and their pros/cons:

Table 1: The pros (or cons) of some of the existing methods for feature extraction with PyTorch

In the next section of this article, let’s see how we can get YES across the board.

FX to The Rescue

The natural question for some new-starters in Python and coding at this point might be: “Can’t we just point to a line of code and tell Python or PyTorch that we want the result of that line?” For those who have spent more time coding, the reason this can’t be done is clear: multiple operations can happen in one line of code, whether they are explicitly written there, or they are implicit as sub-operations. Just take this simple module as an example:

class MyModule(torch.nn.Module):
    def __init__(self):
        super().__init__()
        self.param = torch.nn.Parameter(torch.rand(3, 4))
        self.submodule = MySubModule()

    def forward(self, x):
        return self.submodule(x + self.param).clamp(min=0.0, max=1.0)

The forward method has a single line of code which we can unravel as:

1. Add self.param to x
2. Pass x through self.submodule. Here we would need to consider the steps happening in that submodule. I’m just going to use dummy operation names for illustration:
   I. submodule.op_1
   II. submodule.op_2
3. Apply the clamp operation

So even if we point at this one line, the question then is: “For which step do we want to extract the output?”.

FX is a core PyTorch toolkit that (oversimplifying) does the unravelling I just mentioned. It does something called “symbolic tracing”, which means the Python code is interpreted and stepped through, operation-by-operation, using some dummy proxy for a real input. Introducing some nomenclature, each step as described above is considered a “node”, and consecutive nodes are connected to one another to form a “graph” (not unlike the common mathematical notion of a graph). Here are the “steps” above translated to this concept of a graph.

Figure 3: Graphical representation of the result of symbolically tracing our example of a simple forward method.

Note that we call this a graph, and not just a set of steps, because it’s possible for the graph to branch off and recombine. Think of the skip connection in a residual block. This would look something like:

Figure 4: Graphical representation of a residual skip connection. The middle node is like the main branch of a residual block, and the final node represents the sum of the input and output of the main branch.

Now, TorchVision’s get_graph_node_names function applies FX as described above, and in the process of doing so, tags each node with a human readable name. Let’s try this with our toy CNN model from the previous section:

model = CNN(3, 4, 10)
from torchvision.models.feature_extraction import get_graph_node_names
nodes, _ = get_graph_node_names(model)
print(nodes)

which will result in:

['x', 'blocks.0.convs.0.0', 'blocks.0.convs.0.1', 'blocks.0.convs.1.0', 'blocks.0.convs.1.1', 'blocks.0.downsample', 'blocks.1.convs.0.0', 'blocks.1.convs.0.1', 'blocks.1.convs.1.0', 'blocks.1.convs.1.1', 'blocks.1.convs.2.0', 'blocks.1.convs.2.1', 'blocks.1.downsample', 'blocks.2.convs.0.0', 'blocks.2.convs.0.1', 'blocks.2.convs.1.0', 'blocks.2.convs.1.1', 'blocks.2.convs.2.0', 'blocks.2.convs.2.1', 'blocks.2.downsample', 'blocks.3.convs.0.0', 'blocks.3.convs.0.1', 'blocks.3.convs.1.0', 'blocks.3.convs.1.1', 'blocks.3.convs.2.0', 'blocks.3.convs.2.1', 'blocks.3.downsample', 'global_pool', 'flatten', 'cls']

We can read these node names as hierarchically organised “addresses” for the operations of interest. For example ‘blocks.1.downsample’ refers to the MaxPool2d layer in the second ConvBlock.

create_feature_extractor, which is where all the magic happens, goes a few steps further than get_graph_node_names. It takes desired node names as one of the input arguments, and then uses more FX core functionality to:

1. Assign the desired nodes as outputs.
2. Prune unnecessary downstream nodes and their associated parameters.
3. Translate the resulting graph back into Python code.
4. Return another PyTorch Module to the user. This has the python code from step 3 as the forward method.

As a demonstration, here’s how we would apply create_feature_extractor to get the 4 feature maps from our toy CNN model

from torchvision.models.feature_extraction import create_feature_extractor
# Confused about the node specification here?
# We are allowed to provide truncated node names, and `create_feature_extractor`
# will choose the last node with that prefix.
feature_extractor = create_feature_extractor(
	model, return_nodes=['blocks.0', 'blocks.1', 'blocks.2', 'blocks.3'])
# `out` will be a dict of Tensors, each representing a feature map
out = feature_extractor(torch.zeros(1, 3, 32, 32))

It’s as simple as that. When it comes down to it, FX feature extraction is just a way of making it possible to do what some of us would have naively hoped for when we first started programming: “just give me the output of this code (points finger at screen)”*.

• … does not require us to fiddle with source code.
• … provides full flexibility in terms of accessing any intermediate transformation of our inputs, whether they are the results of a module or a functional operation
• … does drop unnecessary computations steps once features have been extracted
• … and I didn’t mention this before, but it’s also TorchScript friendly!

Here’s that table again with another row added for FX feature extraction

Table 2: A copy of Table 1 with an added row for FX feature extraction. FX feature extraction gets YES across the board!

Current FX Limitations

Although I would have loved to end the post there, FX does have some of its own limitations which boil down to:

1. There may be some Python code that isn’t yet handled by FX when it comes to the step of interpretation and translation into a graph.
2. Dynamic control flow can’t be represented in terms of a static graph.

The easiest thing to do when these problems crop up is to bundle the underlying code into a “leaf node”. Recall the example graph from Figure 3? Conceptually, we may agree that the submodule should be treated as a node in itself rather than a set of nodes representing the underlying operations. If we do so, we can redraw the graph as:

Figure 5: The individual operations within `submodule` may (left – within red box), may be consolidated into one node (right – node #2) if we consider the `submodule` as a “leaf” node.

We would want to do so if there is some problematic code within the submodule, but we don’t have any need for extracting any intermediate transformations from within it. In practice, this is easily achievable by providing a keyword argument to create_feature_extractor or get_graph_node_names.

model = CNN(3, 4, 10)
nodes, _ = get_graph_node_names(model, tracer_kwargs={'leaf_modules': [ConvBlock]})
print(nodes)

for which the output will be:

['x', 'blocks.0', 'blocks.1', 'blocks.2', 'blocks.3', 'global_pool', 'flatten', 'cls']

Notice how, as compared to previously, all the nodes for any given ConvBlock are consolidated into a single node.

We could do something similar with functions. For example, Python’s inbuilt len needs to be wrapped and the result should be treated as a leaf node. Here’s how you can do that with core FX functionality:

torch.fx.wrap('len')

class MyModule(nn.Module):
   def forward(self, x):
       x += 1
       len(x)

model = MyModule()
feature_extractor = create_feature_extractor(model, return_nodes=['add'])

For functions you define, you may instead use another keyword argument to create_feature_extractor (minor detail: here’s why you might want to do it this way instead):

def myfunc(x):
   return len(x)

class MyModule(nn.Module):
   def forward(self, x):
       x += 1
       myfunc(x)

model = MyModule()
feature_extractor = create_feature_extractor(
   model, return_nodes=['add'], tracer_kwargs={'autowrap_functions': [myfunc]})

Notice that none of the fixes above involved modifying source code.

Of course, there may be times when the very intermediate transformation one is trying to get access to is within the same forward method or function that is causing problems. Here, we can’t just treat that module or function as a leaf node, because then we can’t access the intermediate transformations within. In these cases, some rewriting of the source code will be needed. Here are some examples (not exhaustive)

• FX will raise an error when trying to trace through code with an assert statement. In this case you may need to remove that assertion or switch it with torch._assert (this is not a public function – so consider it a bandaid and use with caution).
• Symbolically tracing in-place changes to slices of tensors is not supported. You will need to make a new variable for the slice, apply the operation, then reconstruct the original tensor using concatenation or stacking.
• Representing dynamic control flow in a static graph is just not logically possible. See if you can distill the coded logic down to something that is not dynamic – see FX documentation for tips.

In general, you may consult the FX documentation for more detail on the limitations of symbolic tracing and the possible workarounds.

Conclusion

We did a quick recap on feature extraction and why one might want to do it. Although there are existing methods for doing feature extraction in PyTorch they all have rather significant shortcomings. We learned how TorchVision’s FX feature extraction utility works and what makes it so versatile compared to the existing methods. While there are still some minor kinks to iron out for the latter, we understand the limitations, and can trade them off against the limitations of other methods depending on our use case. Hopefully by adding this new utility to your PyTorch toolkit, you’re now equipped to handle the vast majority of feature extraction requirements you may come across.

Happy coding!

Read More

Today, we are pleased to announce a new advanced CUDA feature, CUDA Graphs, has been brought to PyTorch. Modern DL frameworks have complicated software stacks that incur significant overheads associated with the submission of each operation to the GPU. When DL workloads are strong-scaled to many GPUs for performance, the time taken by each GPU operation diminishes to just a few microseconds and, in these cases, the high work submission latencies of frameworks often lead to low utilization of the GPU. As GPUs get faster and workloads are scaled to more devices, the likelihood of workloads suffering from these launch-induced stalls increases. To overcome these performance overheads, NVIDIA engineers worked with PyTorch developers to enable CUDA graph execution natively in PyTorch. This design was instrumental in scaling NVIDIA’s MLPerf workloads (implemented in PyTorch) to over 4000 GPUs in order to achieve record-breaking performance.

CUDA graphs support in PyTorch is just one more example of a long collaboration between NVIDIA and Facebook engineers. torch.cuda.amp, for example, trains with half precision while maintaining the network accuracy achieved with single precision and automatically utilizing tensor cores wherever possible. AMP delivers up to 3X higher performance than FP32 with just a few lines of code change. Similarly, NVIDIA’s Megatron-LM was trained using PyTorch on up to 3072 GPUs. In PyTorch, one of the most performant methods to scale-out GPU training is with torch.nn.parallel.DistributedDataParallel coupled with the NVIDIA Collective Communications Library (NCCL) backend.

CUDA Graphs

CUDA Graphs, which made its debut in CUDA 10, let a series of CUDA kernels to be defined and encapsulated as a single unit, i.e., a graph of operations, rather than a sequence of individually-launched operations. It provides a mechanism to launch multiple GPU operations through a single CPU operation, and hence reduces the launching overheads.

The benefits of CUDA graphs can be demonstrated with the simple example in Figure 1. On the top, a sequence of short kernels is launched one-by-one by the CPU. The CPU launching overhead creates a significant gap in between the kernels. If we replace this sequence of kernels with a CUDA graph, initially we will need to spend a little extra time on building the graph and launching the whole graph in one go on the first occasion, but subsequent executions will be very fast, as there will be very little gap between the kernels. The difference is more pronounced when the same sequence of operations is repeated many times, for example, overy many training steps. In that case, the initial costs of building and launching the graph will be amortized over the entire number of training iterations. For a more comprehensive introduction on the topic, see our blog
Getting Started with CUDA Graphs and GTC talk Effortless CUDA Graphs.

Figure 1. Benefits of using CUDA graphs

NCCL support for CUDA graphs

The previously mentioned benefits of reducing launch overheads also extend to NCCL kernel launches. NCCL enables GPU-based collective and P2P communications. With NCCL support for CUDA graphs, we can eliminate the NCCL kernel launch overhead.

Additionally, kernel launch timing can be unpredictable due to various CPU load and operating system factors. Such time skews can be harmful to the performance of NCCL collective operations. With CUDA graphs, kernels are clustered together so that performance is consistent across ranks in a distributed workload. This is especially useful in large clusters where even a single slow node can bring down overall cluster level performance.

For distributed multi-GPU workloads, NCCL is used for collective communications. If we look at training a neural network that leverages data parallelism, without NCCL support for CUDA graphs, we’ll need a separate launch for each of forward/back propagation and NCCL AllReduce. By contrast, with NCCL support for CUDA graphs, we can reduce launch overhead by lumping together the forward/backward propagation and NCCL AllReduce all in a single graph launch.

Figure 2. Looking at a typical neural network, all the kernel launches for NCCL AllReduce can be bundled into a graph to reduce overhead launch time.

PyTorch CUDA Graphs

From PyTorch v1.10, the CUDA graphs functionality is made available as a set of beta APIs.

API overview

PyTorch supports the construction of CUDA graphs using stream capture, which puts a CUDA stream in capture mode. CUDA work issued to a capturing stream doesn’t actually run on the GPU. Instead, the work is recorded in a graph. After capture, the graph can be launched to run the GPU work as many times as needed. Each replay runs the same kernels with the same arguments. For pointer arguments this means the same memory addresses are used. By filling input memory with new data (e.g., from a new batch) before each replay, you can rerun the same work on new data.

Replaying a graph sacrifices the dynamic flexibility of typical eager execution in exchange for greatly reduced CPU overhead. A graph’s arguments and kernels are fixed, so a graph replay skips all layers of argument setup and kernel dispatch, including Python, C++, and CUDA driver overheads. Under the hood, a replay submits the entire graph’s work to the GPU with a single call to cudaGraphLaunch. Kernels in a replay also execute slightly faster on the GPU, but eliding CPU overhead is the main benefit.

You should try CUDA graphs if all or part of your network is graph-safe (usually this means static shapes and static control flow, but see the other constraints) and you suspect its runtime is at least somewhat CPU-limited.

API example

PyTorch exposes graphs via a raw torch.cuda.CUDAGraphclass and two convenience wrappers, torch.cuda.graph and torch.cuda.make_graphed_callables.

torch.cuda.graph

torch.cuda.graph is a simple, versatile context manager that captures CUDA work in its context. Before capture, warm up the workload to be captured by running a few eager iterations. Warmup must occur on a side stream. Because the graph reads from and writes to the same memory addresses in every replay, you must maintain long-lived references to tensors that hold input and output data during capture. To run the graph on new input data, copy new data to the capture’s input tensor(s), replay the graph, then read the new output from the capture’s output tensor(s).

If the entire network is capture safe, one can capture and replay the whole network as in the following example.

N, D_in, H, D_out = 640, 4096, 2048, 1024
model = torch.nn.Sequential(torch.nn.Linear(D_in, H),
                            torch.nn.Dropout(p=0.2),
                            torch.nn.Linear(H, D_out),
                            torch.nn.Dropout(p=0.1)).cuda()
loss_fn = torch.nn.MSELoss()
optimizer = torch.optim.SGD(model.parameters(), lr=0.1)

# Placeholders used for capture
static_input = torch.randn(N, D_in, device='cuda')
static_target = torch.randn(N, D_out, device='cuda')

# warmup
# Uses static_input and static_target here for convenience,
# but in a real setting, because the warmup includes optimizer.step()
# you must use a few batches of real data.
s = torch.cuda.Stream()
s.wait_stream(torch.cuda.current_stream())
with torch.cuda.stream(s):
    for i in range(3):
        optimizer.zero_grad(set_to_none=True)
        y_pred = model(static_input)
        loss = loss_fn(y_pred, static_target)
        loss.backward()
        optimizer.step()
torch.cuda.current_stream().wait_stream(s)

# capture
g = torch.cuda.CUDAGraph()
# Sets grads to None before capture, so backward() will create
# .grad attributes with allocations from the graph's private pool
optimizer.zero_grad(set_to_none=True)
with torch.cuda.graph(g):
    static_y_pred = model(static_input)
    # Fills the graph's input memory with new data to compute on
    static_input.copy_(data)
    static_target.copy_(target)
    # replay() includes forward, backward, and step.
    # You don't even need to call optimizer.zero_grad() between iterations
    # because the captured backward refills static .grad tensors in place.
    g.replay()
    # Params have been updated. static_y_pred, static_loss, and .grad
    # attributes hold values from computing on this iteration's data.

If some of your network is unsafe to capture (e.g., due to dynamic control flow, dynamic shapes, CPU syncs, or essential CPU-side logic), you can run the unsafe part(s) eagerly and use torch.cuda.make_graphed_callables() to graph only the capture-safe part(s). This is demonstrated next.

torch.cuda.make_graphed_callables

make_graphed_callables accepts callables (functions or nn.Module and returns graphed versions. By default, callables returned by make_graphed_callables() are autograd-aware, and can be used in the training loop as direct replacements for the functions or nn.Module you passed. make_graphed_callables() internally creates CUDAGraph objects, runs warm up iterations, and maintains static inputs and outputs as needed. Therefore, (unlike with torch.cuda.graph) you don’t need to handle those manually.

In the following example, data-dependent dynamic control flow means the network isn’t capturable end-to-end, but make_graphed_callables() lets us capture and run graph-safe sections as graphs regardless:

N, D_in, H, D_out = 640, 4096, 2048, 1024

module1 = torch.nn.Linear(D_in, H).cuda()
module2 = torch.nn.Linear(H, D_out).cuda()
module3 = torch.nn.Linear(H, D_out).cuda()

loss_fn = torch.nn.MSELoss()
optimizer = torch.optim.SGD(chain(module1.parameters() +
                                  module2.parameters() +
                                  module3.parameters()),
                            lr=0.1)

# Sample inputs used for capture
# requires_grad state of sample inputs must match
# requires_grad state of real inputs each callable will see.
x = torch.randn(N, D_in, device='cuda')
h = torch.randn(N, H, device='cuda', requires_grad=True)

module1 = torch.cuda.make_graphed_callables(module1, (x,))
module2 = torch.cuda.make_graphed_callables(module2, (h,))
module3 = torch.cuda.make_graphed_callables(module3, (h,))

real_inputs = [torch.rand_like(x) for _ in range(10)]
real_targets = [torch.randn(N, D_out, device="cuda") for _ in range(10)]

for data, target in zip(real_inputs, real_targets):
    optimizer.zero_grad(set_to_none=True)

    tmp = module1(data)  # forward ops run as a graph

    if tmp.sum().item() > 0:
        tmp = module2(tmp)  # forward ops run as a graph
    else:
        tmp = module3(tmp)  # forward ops run as a graph

    loss = loss_fn(tmp, y)
    # module2's or module3's (whichever was chosen) backward ops,
    # as well as module1's backward ops, run as graphs
    loss.backward()
    optimizer.step()

Example use cases

MLPerf v1.0 training workloads

The PyTorch CUDA graphs functionality was instrumental in scaling NVIDIA’s MLPerf training v1.0 workloads (implemented in PyTorch) to over 4000 GPUs, setting new records across the board. We illustrate below two MLPerf workloads where the most significant gains were observed with the use of CUDA graphs, yielding up to ~1.7x speedup.

Table 1. MLPerf training v1.0 performance improvement with PyTorch CUDA graph.

Mask R-CNN

Deep learning frameworks use GPUs to accelerate computations, but a significant amount of code still runs on CPU cores. CPU cores process meta-data like tensor shapes in order to prepare arguments needed to launch GPU kernels. Processing meta-data is a fixed cost while the cost of the computational work done by the GPUs is positively correlated with batch size. For large batch sizes, CPU overhead is a negligible percentage of total run time cost, but at small batch sizes CPU overhead can become larger than GPU run time. When that happens, GPUs go idle between kernel calls. This issue can be identified on an NSight timeline plot in Figure 3. The plot below shows the “backbone” portion of Mask R-CNN with per-gpu batch size of 1 before graphing. The green portion shows CPU load while the blue portion shows GPU load. In this profile we see that the CPU is maxed out at 100% load while GPU is idle most of the time, there is a lot of empty space between GPU kernels.

Figure 3: NSight timeline plot of Mask R-CNN

CUDA graphs can automatically eliminate CPU overhead when tensor shapes are static. A complete graph of all the kernel calls is captured during the first step, in subsequent steps the entire graph is launched with a single op, eliminating all the CPU overhead, as observed in Figure 4..

Figure 4: CUDA graphs optimization

With graphing, we see that the GPU kernels are tightly packed and GPU utilization remains high. The graphed portion now runs in 6 ms instead of 31ms, a speedup of 5x. We did not graph the entire model, mostly just the resnet backbone, which resulted in an overall speedup of ~1.7x.
In order to increase the scope of the graph, we made some changes in the software stack to eliminate some of the CPU-GPU synchronization points. In MLPerf v1.0, this work included changing the implementation of torch.randperm function to use CUB instead of Thrust because the latter is a synchronous C++ template library. These improvements are available in the latest NGC container.

BERT

Similarly, by graph capturing the model, we eliminate CPU overhead and accompanying synchronization overhead. CUDA graphs implementation results in a 1.12x performance boost for our max-scale BERT configuration. To maximize the benefits from CUDA graphs, it is important to keep the scope of the graph as large as possible. To achieve this, we modified the model script to remove CPU-GPU synchronizations during the execution such that the full model can be graph captured. Furthermore, we also made sure that the tensor sizes during the execution are static within the scope of the graph. For instance, in BERT, only a specific subset of total tokens contribute to loss function, determined by a pre-generated mask tensor. Extracting the indices of valid tokens from this mask, and using these indices to gather the tokens that contribute to the loss, results in a tensor with a dynamic shape, i.e. with shape that is not constant across iterations. In order to make sure tensor sizes are static, instead of using the dynamic-shape tensors in the loss computation, we used static shape tensors where a mask is used to indicate which elements are valid. As a result, all tensor shapes are static. Dynamic shapes also require CPU-GPU synchronization since it has to involve the framework’s memory management on the CPU side. With static-only shapes, no CPU-GPU synchronizations are necessary. This is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. By using a fixed size tensor and a boolean mask as described in the text, we are able to eliminate CPU synchronizations needed for dynamic sized tensors

CUDA graphs in NVIDIA DL examples collection

Single GPU use cases can also benefit from using CUDA Graphs. This is particularly true for workloads launching many short kernels with small batches. A good example is training and inference for recommender systems. Below we present preliminary benchmark results for NVIDIA’s implementation of the Deep Learning Recommendation Model (DLRM) from our Deep Learning Examples collection. Using CUDA graphs for this workload provides significant speedups for both training and inference. The effect is particularly visible when using very small batch sizes, where CPU overheads are more pronounced.

CUDA graphs are being actively integrated into other PyTorch NGC model scripts and the NVIDIA Github deep learning examples. Stay tuned for more examples on how to use it.

Figure 6: CUDA graphs optimization for the DLRM model.

Call to action: CUDA Graphs in PyTorch v1.10

CUDA graphs can provide substantial benefits for workloads that comprise many small GPU kernels and hence bogged down by CPU launch overheads. This has been demonstrated in our MLPerf efforts, optimizing PyTorch models. Many of these optimizations, including CUDA graphs, have or will eventually be integrated into our PyTorch NGC model scripts collection and the NVIDIA Github deep learning examples. For now, check out our open-source MLPerf training v1.0 implementation which could serve as a good starting point to see CUDA graph in action. Alternatively, try the PyTorch CUDA graphs API on your own workloads.

We thank many NVIDIAN’s and Facebook engineers for their discussions and suggestions:
Karthik Mandakolathur US,
Tomasz Grel,
PLJoey Conway,
Arslan Zulfiqar US

Authors bios

Vinh Nguyen
DL Engineer, NVIDIA

Vinh is a Deep learning engineer and data scientist, having published more than 50 scientific articles attracting more than 2500 citations. At NVIDIA, his work spans a wide range of deep learning and AI applications, including speech, language and vision processing, and recommender systems.

Michael Carilli
Senior Developer Technology Engineer, NVIDIA

Michael worked at the Air Force Research Laboratory optimizing CFD code for modern parallel architectures. He holds a PhD in computational physics from the University of California, Santa Barbara. A member of the PyTorch team, he focuses on making GPU training fast, numerically stable, and easy(er) for internal teams, external customers, and Pytorch community users.

Sukru Burc Eryilmaz
Senior Architect in Dev Arch, NVIDIA

Sukru received his PhD from Stanford University, and B.S from Bilkent University. He currently works on improving the end-to-end performance of neural network training both at single-node scale and supercomputer scale.

Vartika Singh
Tech Partner Lead for DL Frameworks and Libraries, NVIDIA

Vartika has led teams working in confluence of cloud and distributed computing, scaling and AI, influencing the design and strategy of major corporations. She currently works with the major frameworks and compiler organizations and developers within and outside NVIDIA, to help the design to work efficiently and optimally on NVIDIA hardware.

Michelle Lin
Product Intern, NVIDIA

Michelle is currently pursuing an undergraduate degree in Computer Science and Business Administration at UC Berkeley. She is currently managing execution of projects such as conducting market research and creating marketing assets for Magnum IO.

Natalia Gimelshein
Applied Research Scientist, Facebook

Natalia Gimelshein worked on GPU performance optimization for deep learning workloads at NVIDIA and Facebook. She is currently a member of the PyTorch core team, working with partners to seamlessly support new software and hardware features.

Alban Desmaison
Research Engineer, Facebook

Alban studied engineering and did a PhD in Machine Learning and Optimization, during which he was an OSS contributor to PyTorch prior to joining Facebook. His main responsibilities are maintaining some core library and features (autograd, optim, nn) and working on making PyTorch better in general.

Edward Yang
Research Engineer, Facebook

Edward studied CS at MIT and then Stanford before starting at Facebook. He is a part of the PyTorch core team and is one of the leading contributors to PyTorch.

Read More

We’re excited to announce the PyTorch Annual Hackathon 2021! This year, we’re looking to support the community in creating innovative PyTorch tools, libraries, and applications. 2021 is the third year we’re hosting this Hackathon, and we welcome you to join the PyTorch community and put your machine learning skills into action. Submissions start on September 8 and end on November 3. Good luck to everyone!

Submission Categories

You can enter your PyTorch projects into three categories:

• PyTorch Responsible AI Development Tools & Libraries – Build an AI development tool or library that helps develop AI models and applications responsibly. These tools, libraries, and apps need to support a researcher or developer to factor in fairness, security, and privacy throughout the entire machine learning development process of data gathering, model training, model validation, inferences, monitoring, and more.

• Web and Mobile Applications Powered by PyTorch – Build an application with the web, mobile interface, and/or embedded device powered by PyTorch so the end users can interact with it. The submission must be built on PyTorch or use PyTorch-based libraries such as torchvision, torchtext, and fast.ai.

• PyTorch Developer Tools & Libraries – Build a creative, useful, and well-implemented tool or library for improving the productivity and efficiency of PyTorch researchers and developers. The submission must be a machine learning algorithm, model, or application built using PyTorch or PyTorch-based libraries.

Prizes

Submissions will be judged on the idea’s quality, originality, implementation, and potential impact.

• First-Place Winners in each category of the Hackathon will receive $5,000 in cash, along with a 30-minute call with the PyTorch development team.

• Second-Place Winners will receive $3,000.

• Third-Place Winners will receive $2,000.

All winners will also receive the opportunity to create blog posts that will be featured throughout PyTorch channels as well as an exclusive Github badge. Honorable Mentions will also be awarded to the following three highest-scoring entries in each category and will receive $1,000 each.

Cloud Computing Credits

Request $100 in credits from Amazon Web Services or Google Cloud for your computing costs. Please allow 3 business days for your request to be reviewed. Credits will be provided to verified registrants until the supplies run out. For more information, see https://pytorch2021.devpost.com/details/sponsors.

2020 Winning Projects

DeMask won first place in the PyTorch Developer Tools category. Built using Asteroid, a PyTorch-based audio source separation toolkit, DeMask is an end-to-end model for enhancing speech while wearing face masks.

Q&Aid won first place in the Web/Mobile Applications Powered by PyTorch category. Backed by PyTorch core algorithms and models, Q&Aid is a conceptual health care chatbot aimed at making health care diagnoses and facilitating communication between patients and doctors.

FairTorch won first place in the PyTorch Responsible AI Development Tools category. FairTorch is a PyTorch fairness library that lets developers add constraints to their models to equalize metrics across subgroups by simply adding a few lines of code.

How to Join

If you’re interested in joining this year’s PyTorch Hackathon, register at http://pytorch2021.devpost.com.

Read More

In the previous post we went over the theoretical foundations of automatic differentiation and reviewed the implementation in PyTorch. In this post, we will be showing the parts of PyTorch involved in creating the graph and executing it. In order to understand the following contents, please read @ezyang’s wonderful blog post about PyTorch internals.

Autograd components

First of all, let’s look at where the different components of autograd live:

tools/autograd: Here we can find the definition of the derivatives as we saw in the previous post derivatives.yaml, several python scripts and a folder called templates. These scripts and the templates are used at building time to generate the C++ code for the derivatives as specified in the yaml file. Also, the scripts here generate wrappers for the regular ATen functions so that the computational graph can be constructed.

torch/autograd: This folder is where the autograd components that can be used directly from python are located. In function.py we find the actual definition of torch.autograd.Function, a class used by users to write their own differentiable functions in python as per the documentation. functional.py holds components for functionally computing the jacobian vector product, hessian, and other gradient related computations of a given function.
The rest of the files have additional components such as gradient checkers, anomaly detection, and the autograd profiler.

torch/csrc/autograd: This is where the graph creation and execution-related code lives.
All this code is written in C++, since it is a critical part that is required to be extremely performant. Here we have several files that implement the engine, metadata storage, and all the needed components. Alongside this, we have several files whose names start with python_, and their main responsibility is to allow python objects to be used in the autograd engine.

Graph Creation

Previously, we described the creation of a computational graph. Now, we will see how PyTorch creates these graphs with references to the actual codebase.

Figure 1: Example of an augmented computational graph

It all starts when in our python code, where we request a tensor to require the gradient.

>>> x = torch.tensor([0.5, 0.75], requires_grad=True)

When the required_grad flag is set in tensor creation, c10 will allocate an AutogradMeta object that is used to hold the graph information.

void TensorImpl::set_requires_grad(bool requires_grad) {
  ...
  if (!autograd_meta_)
    autograd_meta_ = impl::GetAutogradMetaFactory()->make();
    autograd_meta_->set_requires_grad(requires_grad, this);
}

The AutogradMeta object is defined in torch/csrc/autograd/variable.h as follows:

struct TORCH_API AutogradMeta : public c10::AutogradMetaInterface {
  std::string name_;

  Variable grad_;
  std::shared_ptr<Node> grad_fn_;
  std::weak_ptr<Node> grad_accumulator_;
  // other fields and methods
  ...
};

The most important fields in this structure are the computed gradient in grad_ and a pointer to the function grad_fn that will be called by the engine to produce the actual gradient. Also, there is a gradient accumulator object that is used to add together all the different gradients where this tensor is involved as we will see in the graph execution.

Graphs, Nodes and Edges.

Now, when we call a differentiable function that takes this tensor as an argument, the associated metadata will be populated. Let’s suppose that we call a regular torch function that is implemented in ATen. Let it be the multiplication as in our previous blog post example. The resulting tensor has a field called grad_fn that is essentially a pointer to the function that will be used to compute the gradient of that operation.

>>> x = torch.tensor([0.5, 0.75], requires_grad=True)
>>> v = x[0] * x[1]
>>> v
tensor(0.3750, grad_fn=<MulBackward0>)

Here we see that the tensors’ grad_fn has a MulBackward0 value. This function is the same that was written in the derivatives.yaml file, and its C++ code was generated automatically by all the scripts in tools/autograd. It’s auto-generated source code can be seen in torch/csrc/autograd/generated/Functions.cpp.

variable_list MulBackward0::apply(variable_list&& grads) {
  std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mutex_);

  IndexRangeGenerator gen;
  auto self_ix = gen.range(1);
  auto other_ix = gen.range(1);
  variable_list grad_inputs(gen.size());
  auto& grad = grads[0];
  auto self = self_.unpack();
  auto other = other_.unpack();
  bool any_grad_defined = any_variable_defined(grads);
  if (should_compute_output({ other_ix })) {
    auto grad_result = any_grad_defined ? (mul_tensor_backward(grad, self, other_scalar_type)) : Tensor();
    copy_range(grad_inputs, other_ix, grad_result);
  }
  if (should_compute_output({ self_ix })) {
    auto grad_result = any_grad_defined ? (mul_tensor_backward(grad, other, self_scalar_type)) : Tensor();
    copy_range(grad_inputs, self_ix, grad_result);
  }
  return grad_inputs;
}

The grad_fn objects inherit from the TraceableFunction class, a descendant of Node with just a property set to enable tracing for debugging and optimization purposes. A graph by definition has nodes and edges, so these functions are indeed the nodes of the computational graph that are linked together by using Edge objects to enable the graph traversal later on.

The Node definition can be found in the torch/csrc/autograd/function.h file.

struct TORCH_API Node : std::enable_shared_from_this<Node> {
 ...
 /// Evaluates the function on the given inputs and returns the result of the
  /// function call.
  variable_list operator()(variable_list&& inputs) {
  ...
  }

protected:
  /// Performs the `Node`'s actual operation.
  virtual variable_list apply(variable_list&& inputs) = 0;
  …
  edge_list next_edges_;

Essentially we see that it has an override of the operator () that performs the call to the actual function, and a pure virtual function called apply. The automatically generated functions override this apply method as we saw in the MulBackward0 example above. Finally, the node also has a list of edges to enable graph connectivity.

The Edge object is used to link Nodes together and its implementation is straightforward.

struct Edge {
  ...
  /// The function this `Edge` points to.
  std::shared_ptr<Node> function;
  /// The identifier of a particular input to the function.
  uint32_t input_nr;
};

It only requires a function pointer (the actual grad_fn objects that the edges link together), and an input number that acts as an id for the edge.

Linking nodes together

When we invoke the product operation of two tensors, we enter into the realm of autogenerated code. All the scripts that we saw in tools/autograd fill a series of templates that wrap the differentiable functions in ATen. These functions have code to construct the backward graph during the forward pass.

The gen_variable_type.py script is in charge of writing all this wrapping code. This script is called from the tools/autograd/gen_autograd.py during the pytorch build process and it will output the automatically generated function wrappers to torch/csrc/autograd/generated/.

Let’s take a look at how the tensor multiplication generated function looks like. The code has been simplified, but it can be found in the torch/csrc/autograd/generated/VariableType_4.cpp file when compiling pytorch from source.

at::Tensor mul_Tensor(c10::DispatchKeySet ks, const at::Tensor & self, const at::Tensor & other) {
  ...
  auto _any_requires_grad = compute_requires_grad( self, other );
  std::shared_ptr<MulBackward0> grad_fn;
  if (_any_requires_grad) {
    // Creates the link to the actual grad_fn and links the graph for backward traversal
    grad_fn = std::shared_ptr<MulBackward0>(new MulBackward0(), deleteNode);
    grad_fn->set_next_edges(collect_next_edges( self, other ));
    ...
  }
  …
  // Does the actual function call to ATen
  auto _tmp = ([&]() {
    at::AutoDispatchBelowADInplaceOrView guard;
    return at::redispatch::mul(ks & c10::after_autograd_keyset, self_, other_);
  })();

  auto result = std::move(_tmp);
    if (grad_fn) {
       // Connects the result to the graph
      set_history(flatten_tensor_args( result ), grad_fn);
  }
  ...
  return result;
}

Let’s walk through the most important lines of this code.
First of all, the grad_fn object is created with: ` grad_fn = std::shared_ptr(new MulBackward0(), deleteNode);`.

After the grad_fn object is created, the edges used to link the nodes together are created by using the grad_fn->set_next_edges(collect_next_edges( self, other )); calls.

struct MakeNextFunctionList : IterArgs<MakeNextFunctionList> {
  edge_list next_edges;
  using IterArgs<MakeNextFunctionList>::operator();
  void operator()(const Variable& variable) {
    if (variable.defined()) {
      next_edges.push_back(impl::gradient_edge(variable));
    } else {
      next_edges.emplace_back();
    }
  }
  void operator()(const c10::optional<Variable>& variable) {
    if (variable.has_value() && variable->defined()) {
      next_edges.push_back(impl::gradient_edge(*variable));
    } else {
      next_edges.emplace_back();
    }
  }
};

template <typename... Variables>
edge_list collect_next_edges(Variables&&... variables) {
  detail::MakeNextFunctionList make;
  make.apply(std::forward<Variables>(variables)...);
  return std::move(make.next_edges);
}

Given an input variable (it’s just a regular tensor), collect_next_edges
will create an Edge object by calling impl::gradient_edge

 Edge gradient_edge(const Variable& self) {
    // If grad_fn is null (as is the case for a leaf node), we instead
    // interpret the gradient function to be a gradient accumulator, which will
    // accumulate its inputs into the grad property of the variable. These
    // nodes get suppressed in some situations, see "suppress gradient
    // accumulation" below. Note that only variables which have `requires_grad =
    // True` can have gradient accumulators.
    if (const auto& gradient = self.grad_fn()) {
      return Edge(gradient, self.output_nr());
    } else {
      return Edge(grad_accumulator(self), 0);
    }
  }

To understand how edges work, let’s assume that an early executed function produced two output tensors, both with their grad_fn set, each tensor also has an output_nr property with the order in which they were returned. When creating the edges for the current grad_fn, an Edge object per input variable will be created. The edges will point to the variable’s grad_fn and will also track the output_nr to establish ids used when traversing the graph. In the case that the input variables are “leaf”, i.e. they were not produced by any differentiable function, they don’t have a grad_fn attribute set. A special function called a gradient accumulator is set by default as seen in the above code snippet.

After the edges are created, the grad_fn graph Node object that is being currently created will hold them using the set_next_edges function. This is what connects grad_fns together, producing the computational graph.

 void set_next_edges(edge_list&& next_edges) {
    next_edges_ = std::move(next_edges);
    for(const auto& next_edge : next_edges_) {
      update_topological_nr(next_edge);
    }
  }

Now, the forward pass of the function will execute, and after the execution set_history will connect the output tensors to the grad_fn Node.

inline void set_history(
    at::Tensor& variable,
    const std::shared_ptr<Node>& grad_fn) {
  AT_ASSERT(grad_fn);
  if (variable.defined()) {
    // If the codegen triggers this, you most likely want to add your newly added function
    // to the DONT_REQUIRE_DERIVATIVE list in tools/autograd/gen_variable_type.py
    TORCH_INTERNAL_ASSERT(isDifferentiableType(variable.scalar_type()));
    auto output_nr =
        grad_fn->add_input_metadata(variable);
    impl::set_gradient_edge(variable, {grad_fn, output_nr});
  } else {
    grad_fn->add_input_metadata(Node::undefined_input());
  }
}

set_history calls set_gradient_edge, which just copies the grad_fn and the output_nr to the AutogradMeta object that the tensor has.

 void set_gradient_edge(const Variable& self, Edge edge) {
    auto* meta = materialize_autograd_meta(self);
    meta->grad_fn_ = std::move(edge.function);
    meta->output_nr_ = edge.input_nr;
    // For views, make sure this new grad_fn_ is not overwritten unless it is necessary
    // in the VariableHooks::grad_fn below.
    // This logic is only relevant for custom autograd Functions for which multiple
    // operations can happen on a given Tensor before its gradient edge is set when
    // exiting the custom Function.
    auto diff_view_meta = get_view_autograd_meta(self);
    if (diff_view_meta && diff_view_meta->has_bw_view()) {
      diff_view_meta->set_attr_version(self._version());
    }
  }

This tensor now will be the input to another function and the above steps will be all repeated. Check the animation below to see how the graph is created.

Figure 2: Animation that shows the graph creation

Registering Python Functions in the graph

We have seen how autograd creates the graph for the functions included in ATen. However, when we define our differentiable functions in Python, they are also included in the graph!

An autograd python defined function looks like the following:

class Exp(torch.autograd.Function):
     @staticmethod
     def forward(ctx, i):
         result = i.exp()
         ctx.save_for_backward(result)
         return result

     @staticmethod
     def backward(ctx, grad_output):
         result, = ctx.saved_tensors
         return grad_output * result

# Call the function
Exp.apply(torch.tensor(0.5, requires_grad=True))
# Outputs: tensor(1.6487, grad_fn=<ExpBackward>)

In the above snippet autograd detected our python function when creating the graph. All of this is possible thanks to the Function class. Let’s take a look at what happens when we call apply.

apply is defined in the torch._C._FunctionBase class, but this class is not present in the python source. _FunctionBase is defined in C++ by using the python C API to hook C functions together into a single python class. We are looking for a function named THPFunction_apply.

PyObject *THPFunction_apply(PyObject *cls, PyObject *inputs)
{
  
  // Generates the graph node
  THPObjectPtr backward_cls(PyObject_GetAttrString(cls, "_backward_cls"));
  if (!backward_cls) return nullptr;
  THPObjectPtr ctx_obj(PyObject_CallFunctionObjArgs(backward_cls, nullptr));
  if (!ctx_obj) return nullptr;
  THPFunction* ctx = (THPFunction*)ctx_obj.get();

  auto cdata = std::shared_ptr<PyNode>(new PyNode(std::move(ctx_obj)), deleteNode);
  ctx->cdata = cdata;

  // Prepare inputs and allocate context (grad fn)
  // Unpack inputs will collect the edges
  auto info_pair = unpack_input<false>(inputs);
  UnpackedInput& unpacked_input = info_pair.first;
  InputFlags& input_info = info_pair.second;

   // Initialize backward function (and ctx)
  bool is_executable = input_info.is_executable;
  cdata->set_next_edges(std::move(input_info.next_edges));
  ctx->needs_input_grad = input_info.needs_input_grad.release();
  ctx->is_variable_input = std::move(input_info.is_variable_input);

  // Prepend ctx to input_tuple, in preparation for static method call
  auto num_args = PyTuple_GET_SIZE(inputs);
  THPObjectPtr ctx_input_tuple(PyTuple_New(num_args + 1));
  if (!ctx_input_tuple) return nullptr;
  Py_INCREF(ctx);
  PyTuple_SET_ITEM(ctx_input_tuple.get(), 0, (PyObject*)ctx);
  for (int i = 0; i < num_args; ++i) {
    PyObject *arg = PyTuple_GET_ITEM(unpacked_input.input_tuple.get(), i);
    Py_INCREF(arg);
    PyTuple_SET_ITEM(ctx_input_tuple.get(), i + 1, arg);
  }

  // Call forward
  THPObjectPtr tensor_outputs;
  {
    AutoGradMode grad_mode(false);
    THPObjectPtr forward_fn(PyObject_GetAttrString(cls, "forward"));
    if (!forward_fn) return nullptr;
    tensor_outputs = PyObject_CallObject(forward_fn, ctx_input_tuple);
    if (!tensor_outputs) return nullptr;
  }

  // Here is where the outputs gets the tensors tracked
  return process_outputs(cls, cdata, ctx, unpacked_input, inputs, std::move(tensor_outputs),
                         is_executable, node);
  END_HANDLE_TH_ERRORS
}

Although this code is hard to read at first due to all the python API calls, it essentially does the same thing as the auto-generated forward functions that we saw for ATen:

Create a grad_fn object.
Collect the edges to link the current grad_fn with the input tensors one.
Execute the function forward.
Assign the created grad_fn to the output tensors metadata.

The grad_fn object is created in:

  // Generates the graph node
  THPObjectPtr backward_cls(PyObject_GetAttrString(cls, "_backward_cls"));
  if (!backward_cls) return nullptr;
  THPObjectPtr ctx_obj(PyObject_CallFunctionObjArgs(backward_cls, nullptr));
  if (!ctx_obj) return nullptr;
  THPFunction* ctx = (THPFunction*)ctx_obj.get();

  auto cdata = std::shared_ptr<PyNode>(new PyNode(std::move(ctx_obj)), deleteNode);
  ctx->cdata = cdata;

Basically, it asks the python API to get a pointer to the Python object that can execute the user-written function. Then it wraps it into a PyNode object that is a specialized Node object that calls the python interpreter with the provided python function when apply is executed during the forward pass. Note that in the code cdata is the actual Node object that is part of the graph. ctx is the object that is passed to the python forward/backward functions and it is used to store autograd related information by both, the user’s function and PyTorch.

As in the regular C++ functions we also call collect_next_edges to track the inputs grad_fn objects, but this is done in unpack_input:

template<bool enforce_variables>
std::pair<UnpackedInput, InputFlags> unpack_input(PyObject *args) {
  ...
  flags.next_edges = (flags.is_executable ? collect_next_edges(unpacked.input_vars) : edge_list());
  return std::make_pair(std::move(unpacked), std::move(flags));
}

After this, the edges are assigned to the grad_fn by just doing cdata->set_next_edges(std::move(input_info.next_edges)); and the forward function is called through the python interpreter C API.

Once the output tensors are returned from the forward pass, they are processed and converted to variables inside the process_outputs function.

PyObject* process_outputs(PyObject *op_obj, const std::shared_ptr<PyNode>& cdata,
                          THPFunction* grad_fn, const UnpackedInput& unpacked,
                          PyObject *inputs, THPObjectPtr&& raw_output, bool is_executable,
                          torch::jit::Node* node) {
  ...
  _wrap_outputs(cdata, grad_fn, unpacked.input_vars, raw_output, outputs, is_executable);
  _trace_post_record(node, op_obj, unpacked.input_vars, outputs, is_inplace, unpack_output);
  if (is_executable) {
    _save_variables(cdata, grad_fn);
  } ...
  return outputs.release();
}

Here, _wrap_outputs is in charge of setting the forward outputs grad_fn to the newly created one. For this, it calls another _wrap_outputs function defined in a different file, so the process here gets a little confusing.

static void _wrap_outputs(const std::shared_ptr<PyNode>& cdata, THPFunction *self,
    const variable_list &input_vars, PyObject *raw_output, PyObject *outputs, bool is_executable)
{
  auto cdata_if_executable = is_executable ? cdata : nullptr;
 ...

  // Wrap only the tensor outputs.
  // This calls csrc/autograd/custom_function.cpp
  auto wrapped_outputs = _wrap_outputs(input_vars, non_differentiable, dirty_inputs, raw_output_vars, cdata_if_executable);
...
}

The called _wrap_outputs is the one in charge of setting the autograd metadata in the output tensors:

std::vector<c10::optional<Variable>> _wrap_outputs(const variable_list &input_vars,
  const std::unordered_set<at::TensorImpl*> &non_differentiable,
  const std::unordered_set<at::TensorImpl*> &dirty_inputs,
  const at::ArrayRef<c10::optional<Variable>> raw_outputs,
  const std::shared_ptr<Node> &cdata) {


  std::unordered_set<at::TensorImpl*> inputs;
  …
  // Sets the grad_fn and output_nr of an output Variable.
  auto set_history = [&](Variable& var, uint32_t output_nr, bool is_input, bool is_modified,
                         bool is_differentiable) {
    // Lots of checks
    if (!is_differentiable) {
     ...
    } else if (is_input) {
      // An input has been returned, but it wasn't modified. Return it as a view
      // so that we can attach a new grad_fn to the Variable.
      // Run in no_grad mode to mimic the behavior of the forward.
      {
        AutoGradMode grad_mode(false);
        var = var.view_as(var);
      }
      impl::set_gradient_edge(var, {cdata, output_nr});
    } else if (cdata) {
      impl::set_gradient_edge(var, {cdata, output_nr});
    }
  };

And this is where set_gradient_edge was called and this is how a user-written python function gets included in the computational graph with its associated backward function!

Closing remarks

This blog post is intended to be a code overview on how PyTorch constructs the actual computational graphs that we discussed in the previous post. The next entry will deal with how the autograd engine executes these graphs.

Read More

We are excited to announce PyTorch Developer Day (#PTD2), taking place virtually from December 1 & 2, 2021. Developer Day is designed for developers and users to discuss core technical developments, ideas, and roadmaps.

Event Details

Technical Talks Live Stream – December 1, 2021

Join us for technical talks on a variety of topics, including updates to the core framework, new tools and libraries to support development across a variety of domains, responsible AI and industry use cases. All talks will take place on December 1 and will be live streamed on PyTorch channels.

Stay up to date by following us on our social channels: Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn.

Poster Exhibition & Networking – December 2, 2021

On the second day, we’ll be hosting an online poster exhibition on Gather.Town. There will be opportunities to meet the authors and learn more about their PyTorch projects as well as network with the community. This poster and networking event is limited to people composed of PyTorch maintainers and contributors, long-time stakeholders and experts in areas relevant to PyTorch’s future. Conversations from the networking event will strongly shape the future of PyTorch. As such, invitations are required to attend the networking event.

Apply for an invitation to the networking event by clicking here.

Call for Content Now Open

Submit your poster abstracts today! Please send us the title and brief summary of your project, tools and libraries that could benefit PyTorch researchers in academia and industry, application developers, and ML engineers for consideration. The focus must be on academic papers, machine learning research, or open-source projects related to PyTorch development, Responsible AI or Mobile. Please no sales pitches. Deadline for submission is September 24, 2021.

You can submit your poster abstract during your application & registration process here.

Visit the event website for more information and we look forward to having you at PyTorch Developer Day. For any questions about the event, contact pytorch@fbreg.com.

Read More

In this blog post, we describe the first peer-reviewed research paper that explores accelerating the hybrid of PyTorch DDP (torch.nn.parallel.DistributedDataParallel) [1] and Pipeline (torch.distributed.pipeline) – PipeTransformer: Automated Elastic Pipelining for Distributed Training of Large-scale Models (Transformers such as BERT [2] and ViT [3]), published at ICML 2021.

PipeTransformer leverages automated elastic pipelining for efficient distributed training of Transformer models. In PipeTransformer, we designed an adaptive on-the-fly freeze algorithm that can identify and freeze some layers gradually during training and an elastic pipelining system that can dynamically allocate resources to train the remaining active layers. More specifically, PipeTransformer automatically excludes frozen layers from the pipeline, packs active layers into fewer GPUs, and forks more replicas to increase data-parallel width. We evaluate PipeTransformer using Vision Transformer (ViT) on ImageNet and BERT on SQuAD and GLUE datasets. Our results show that compared to the state-of-the-art baseline, PipeTransformer attains up to 2.83-fold speedup without losing accuracy. We also provide various performance analyses for a more comprehensive understanding of our algorithmic and system-wise design.

Next, we will introduce the background, motivation, our idea, design, and how we implement the algorithm and system with PyTorch Distributed APIs.

• Paper: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/he21a.html
• Source Code: https://DistML.ai.
• Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1t6HWL33KIQo2as0nSHeBpXYtTBcy0nXCoLiKd0EashY/edit?usp=sharing

Introduction

Figure 1: the Parameter Number of Transformer Models Increases Dramatically.

Large Transformer models [4][5] have powered accuracy breakthroughs in both natural language processing and computer vision. GPT-3 [4] hit a new record high accuracy for nearly all NLP tasks. Vision Transformer (ViT) [3] also achieved 89% top-1 accuracy in ImageNet, outperforming state-of-the-art convolutional networks ResNet-152 and EfficientNet. To tackle the growth in model sizes, researchers have proposed various distributed training techniques, including parameter servers [6][7][8], pipeline parallelism [9][10][11][12], intra-layer parallelism [13][14][15], and zero redundancy data-parallel [16].

Existing distributed training solutions, however, only study scenarios where all model weights are required to be optimized throughout the training (i.e., computation and communication overhead remains relatively static over different iterations). Recent works on progressive training suggest that parameters in neural networks can be trained dynamically:

• Freeze Training: Singular Vector Canonical Correlation Analysis for Deep Learning Dynamics and Interpretability. NeurIPS 2017
• Efficient Training of BERT by Progressively Stacking. ICML 2019
• Accelerating Training of Transformer-Based Language Models with Progressive Layer Dropping. NeurIPS 2020.
• On the Transformer Growth for Progressive BERT Training. NACCL 2021

Figure 2. Interpretable Freeze Training: DNNs converge bottom-up (Results on CIFAR10 using ResNet). Each pane shows layer-by-layer similarity using SVCCA [17][18]

For example, in freeze training [17][18], neural networks usually converge from the bottom-up (i.e., not all layers need to be trained all the way through training). Figure 2 shows an example of how weights gradually stabilize during training in this approach. This observation motivates us to utilize freeze training for distributed training of Transformer models to accelerate training by dynamically allocating resources to focus on a shrinking set of active layers. Such a layer freezing strategy is especially pertinent to pipeline parallelism, as excluding consecutive bottom layers from the pipeline can reduce computation, memory, and communication overhead.

Figure 3. The process of PipeTransformer’s automated and elastic pipelining to accelerate distributed training of Transformer models

We propose PipeTransformer, an elastic pipelining training acceleration framework that automatically reacts to frozen layers by dynamically transforming the scope of the pipelined model and the number of pipeline replicas. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that studies layer freezing in the context of both pipeline and data-parallel training. Figure 3 demonstrates the benefits of such a combination. First, by excluding frozen layers from the pipeline, the same model can be packed into fewer GPUs, leading to both fewer cross-GPU communications and smaller pipeline bubbles. Second, after packing the model into fewer GPUs, the same cluster can accommodate more pipeline replicas, increasing the width of data parallelism. More importantly, the speedups acquired from these two benefits are multiplicative rather than additive, further accelerating the training.

The design of PipeTransformer faces four major challenges. First, the freeze algorithm must make on-the-fly and adaptive freezing decisions; however, existing work [17][18] only provides a posterior analysis tool. Second, the efficiency of pipeline re-partitioning results is influenced by multiple factors, including partition granularity, cross-partition activation size, and the chunking (the number of micro-batches) in mini-batches, which require reasoning and searching in a large solution space. Third, to dynamically introduce additional pipeline replicas, PipeTransformer must overcome the static nature of collective communications and avoid potentially complex cross-process messaging protocols when onboarding new processes (one pipeline is handled by one process). Finally, caching can save time for repeated forward propagation of frozen layers, but it must be shared between existing pipelines and newly added ones, as the system cannot afford to create and warm up a dedicated cache for each replica.

Figure 4: An Animation to Show the Dynamics of PipeTransformer

As shown in the animation (Figure 4), PipeTransformer is designed with four core building blocks to address the aforementioned challenges. First, we design a tunable and adaptive algorithm to generate signals that guide the selection of layers to freeze over different iterations (Freeze Algorithm). Once triggered by these signals, our elastic pipelining module (AutoPipe), then packs the remaining active layers into fewer GPUs by taking both activation sizes and variances of workloads across heterogeneous partitions (frozen layers and active layers) into account. It then splits a mini-batch into an optimal number of micro-batches based on prior profiling results for different pipeline lengths. Our next module, AutoDP, spawns additional pipeline replicas to occupy freed-up GPUs and maintains hierarchical communication process groups to attain dynamic membership for collective communications. Our final module, AutoCache, efficiently shares activations across existing and new data-parallel processes and automatically replaces stale caches during transitions.

Overall, PipeTransformer combines the Freeze Algorithm, AutoPipe, AutoDP, and AutoCache modules to provide a significant training speedup.
We evaluate PipeTransformer using Vision Transformer (ViT) on ImageNet and BERT on GLUE and SQuAD datasets. Our results show that PipeTransformer attains up to 2.83-fold speedup without losing accuracy. We also provide various performance analyses for a more comprehensive understanding of our algorithmic and system-wise design.
Finally, we have also developed open-source flexible APIs for PipeTransformer, which offer a clean separation among the freeze algorithm, model definitions, and training accelerations, allowing for transferability to other algorithms that require similar freezing strategies.

Overall Design

Suppose we aim to train a massive model in a distributed training system where the hybrid of pipelined model parallelism and data parallelism is used to target scenarios where either the memory of a single GPU device cannot hold the model, or if loaded, the batch size is small enough to avoid running out of memory. More specifically, we define our settings as follows:

Training task and model definition. We train Transformer models (e.g., Vision Transformer, BERT on large-scale image or text datasets. The Transformer model has layers, in which the th layer is composed of a forward computation function and a corresponding set of parameters.

Training infrastructure. Assume the training infrastructure contains a GPU cluster that has GPU servers (i.e. nodes). Each node has GPUs. Our cluster is homogeneous, meaning that each GPU and server have the same hardware configuration. Each GPU’s memory capacity is . Servers are connected by a high bandwidth network interface such as InfiniBand interconnect.

Pipeline parallelism. In each machine, we load a model into a pipeline which has partitions ( also represents the pipeline length). The th partition consists of consecutive layers. We assume each partition is handled by a single GPU device. , meaning that we can build multiple pipelines for multiple model replicas in a single machine. We assume all GPU devices in a pipeline belonging to the same machine. Our pipeline is a synchronous pipeline, which does not involve stale gradients, and the number of micro-batches is . In the Linux OS, each pipeline is handled by a single process. We refer the reader to GPipe [10] for more details.

Data parallelism. DDP is a cross-machine distributed data-parallel process group within parallel workers. Each worker is a pipeline replica (a single process). The th worker’s index (ID) is rank . For any two pipelines in DDP, they can belong to either the same GPU server or different GPU servers, and they can exchange gradients with the AllReduce algorithm.

Under these settings, our goal is to accelerate training by leveraging freeze training, which does not require all layers to be trained throughout the duration of the training. Additionally, it may help save computation, communication, memory cost, and potentially prevent overfitting by consecutively freezing layers. However, these benefits can only be achieved by overcoming the four challenges of designing an adaptive freezing algorithm, dynamical pipeline re-partitioning, efficient resource reallocation, and cross-process caching, as discussed in the introduction.

Figure 5. Overview of PipeTransformer Training System

PipeTransformer co-designs an on-the-fly freeze algorithm and an automated elastic pipelining training system that can dynamically transform the scope of the pipelined model and the number of pipeline replicas. The overall system architecture is illustrated in Figure 5. To support PipeTransformer’s elastic pipelining, we maintain a customized version of PyTorch Pipeline. For data parallelism, we use PyTorch DDP as a baseline. Other libraries are standard mechanisms of an operating system (e.g.,multi-processing) and thus avoid specialized software or hardware customization requirements. To ensure the generality of our framework, we have decoupled the training system into four core components: freeze algorithm, AutoPipe, AutoDP, and AutoCache. The freeze algorithm (grey) samples indicators from the training loop and makes layer-wise freezing decisions, which will be shared with AutoPipe (green). AutoPipe is an elastic pipeline module that speeds up training by excluding frozen layers from the pipeline and packing the active layers into fewer GPUs (pink), leading to both fewer cross-GPU communications and smaller pipeline bubbles. Subsequently, AutoPipe passes pipeline length information to AutoDP (purple), which then spawns more pipeline replicas to increase data-parallel width, if possible. The illustration also includes an example in which AutoDP introduces a new replica (purple). AutoCache (orange edges) is a cross-pipeline caching module, as illustrated by connections between pipelines. The source code architecture is aligned with Figure 5 for readability and generality.

Implementation Using PyTorch APIs

As can be seen from Figure 5, PipeTransformers contain four components: Freeze Algorithm, AutoPipe, AutoDP, and AutoCache. Among them, AutoPipe and AutoDP relies on PyTorch DDP (torch.nn.parallel.DistributedDataParallel) [1] and Pipeline (torch.distributed.pipeline), respectively. In this blog, we only highlight the key implementation details of AutoPipe and AutoDP. For details of Freeze Algorithm and AutoCache, please refer to our paper.

AutoPipe: Elastic Pipelining

AutoPipe can accelerate training by excluding frozen layers from the pipeline and packing the active layers into fewer GPUs. This section elaborates on the key components of AutoPipe that dynamically 1) partition pipelines, 2) minimize the number of pipeline devices, and 3) optimize mini-batch chunk size accordingly.

Basic Usage of PyTorch Pipeline

Before diving into details of AutoPipe, let us warm up the basic usage of PyTorch Pipeline (torch.distributed.pipeline.sync.Pipe, see this tutorial). More specially, we present a simple example to understand the design of Pipeline in practice:

# Step 1: build a model including two linear layers
fc1 = nn.Linear(16, 8).cuda(0)
fc2 = nn.Linear(8, 4).cuda(1)

# Step 2: wrap the two layers with nn.Sequential
model = nn.Sequential(fc1, fc2)

# Step 3: build Pipe (torch.distributed.pipeline.sync.Pipe)
model = Pipe(model, chunks=8)

# do training/inference
input = torch.rand(16, 16).cuda(0)
output_rref = model(input)

In this basic example, we can see that before initializing Pipe, we need to partition the model nn.Sequential into multiple GPU devices and set optimal chunk number (chunks). Balancing computation time across partitions is critical to pipeline training speed, as skewed workload distributions across stages can lead to stragglers and forcing devices with lighter workloads to wait. The chunk number may also have a non-trivial influence on the throughput of the pipeline.

Balanced Pipeline Partitioning

In dynamic training system such as PipeTransformer, maintaining optimally balanced partitions in terms of parameter numbers does not guarantee the fastest training speed because other factors also play a crucial role:

Figure 6. The partition boundary is in the middle of a skip connection

1. Cross-partition communication overhead. Placing a partition boundary in the middle of a skip connection leads to additional communications since tensors in the skip connection must now be copied to a different GPU. For example, with BERT partitions in Figure 6, partition must take intermediate outputs from both partition and partition . In contrast, if the boundary is placed after the addition layer, the communication overhead between partition and is visibly smaller. Our measurements show that having cross-device communication is more expensive than having slightly imbalanced partitions (see the Appendix in our paper). Therefore, we do not consider breaking skip connections (highlighted separately as an entire attention layer and MLP layer in green color at line 7 in Algorithm 1.

2. Frozen layer memory footprint. During training, AutoPipe must recompute partition boundaries several times to balance two distinct types of layers: frozen layers and active layers. The frozen layer’s memory cost is a fraction of that inactive layer, given that the frozen layer does not need backward activation maps, optimizer states, and gradients. Instead of launching intrusive profilers to obtain thorough metrics on memory and computational cost, we define a tunable cost factor to estimate the memory footprint ratio of a frozen layer over the same active layer. Based on empirical measurements in our experimental hardware, we set it to .

Based on the above two considerations, AutoPipe balances pipeline partitions based on parameter sizes. More specifically, AutoPipe uses a greedy algorithm to allocate all frozen and active layers to evenly distribute partitioned sublayers into GPU devices. Pseudocode is described as the load_balance() function in Algorithm 1. The frozen layers are extracted from the original model and kept in a separate model instance in the first device of a pipeline.

Note that the partition algorithm employed in this paper is not the only option; PipeTransformer is modularized to work with any alternatives.

Pipeline Compression

Pipeline compression helps to free up GPUs to accommodate more pipeline replicas and reduce the number of cross-device communications between partitions. To determine the timing of compression, we can estimate the memory cost of the largest partition after compression, and then compare it with that of the largest partition of a pipeline at timestep . To avoid extensive memory profiling, the compression algorithm uses the parameter size as a proxy for the training memory footprint. Based on this simplification, the criterion of pipeline compression is as follows:

Once the freeze notification is received, AutoPipe will always attempt to divide the pipeline length by 2 (e.g., from 8 to 4, then 2). By using as the input, the compression algorithm can verify if the result satisfies the criterion in Equation (1). Pseudocode is shown in lines 25-33 in Algorithm 1. Note that this compression makes the acceleration ratio exponentially increase during training, meaning that if a GPU server has a larger number of GPUs (e.g., more than 8), the acceleration ratio will be further amplified.

Figure 7. Pipeline Bubble: , and denote forward, backward, and the optimizer update of micro-batch on device , respectively. The total bubble size in each iteration is times per micro-batch forward and backward cost.

Additionally, such a technique can also speed up training by shrinking the size of pipeline bubbles. To explain bubble sizes in a pipeline, Figure 7 depicts how 4 micro-batches run through a 4-device pipeline . In general, the total bubble size is times per micro-batch forward and backward cost. Therefore, it is clear that shorter pipelines have smaller bubble sizes.

Dynamic Number of Micro-Batches

Prior pipeline parallel systems use a fixed number of micro-batches per mini-batch ( ). GPipe suggests , where is the number of partitions (pipeline length). However, given that PipeTransformer dynamically configures , we find it to be sub-optimal to maintain a static during training. Moreover, when integrated with DDP, the value of also has an impact on the efficiency of DDP gradient synchronizations. Since DDP must wait for the last micro-batch to finish its backward computation on a parameter before launching its gradient synchronization, finer micro-batches lead to a smaller overlap between computation and communication. Hence, instead of using a static value, PipeTransformer searches for optimal on the fly in the hybrid of DDP environment by enumerating values ranging from to . For a specific training environment, the profiling needs only to be done once (see Algorithm 1 line 35).

For the complete source code, please refer to https://github.com/Distributed-AI/PipeTransformer/blob/master/pipe_transformer/pipe/auto_pipe.py.

AutoDP: Spawning More Pipeline Replicas

As AutoPipe compresses the same pipeline into fewer GPUs, AutoDP can automatically spawn new pipeline replicas to increase data-parallel width.

Despite the conceptual simplicity, subtle dependencies on communications and states require careful design. The challenges are threefold:

1. DDP Communication: Collective communications in PyTorch DDP requires static membership, which prevents new pipelines from connecting with existing ones;

2. State Synchronization: newly activated processes must be consistent with existing pipelines in the training progress (e.g., epoch number and learning rate), weights and optimizer states, the boundary of frozen layers, and pipeline GPU range;

3. Dataset Redistribution: the dataset should be re-balanced to match a dynamic number of pipelines. This not only avoids stragglers but also ensures that gradients from all DDP processes are equally weighted.

Figure 8. AutoDP: handling dynamical data-parallel with messaging between double process groups (Process 0-7 belong to machine 0, while process 8-15 belong to machine 1)

To tackle these challenges, we create double communication process groups for DDP. As in the example shown in Figure 8, the message process group (purple) is responsible for light-weight control messages and covers all processes, while the active training process group (yellow) only contains active processes and serves as a vehicle for heavy-weight tensor communications during training. The message group remains static, whereas the training group is dismantled and reconstructed to match active processes.
In T0, only processes 0 and 8 are active. During the transition to T1, process 0 activates processes 1 and 9 (newly added pipeline replicas) and synchronizes necessary information mentioned above using the message group. The four active processes then form a new training group, allowing static collective communications adaptive to dynamic memberships.
To redistribute the dataset, we implement a variant of DistributedSampler that can seamlessly adjust data samples to match the number of active pipeline replicas.

The above design also naturally helps to reduce DDP communication overhead. More specifically, when transitioning from T0 to T1, processes 0 and 1 destroy the existing DDP instances, and active processes construct a new DDP training group using a cached pipelined model (AutoPipe stores frozen model and cached model separately).

We use the following APIs to implement the design above.

import torch.distributed as dist
from torch.nn.parallel import DistributedDataParallel as DDP

# initialize the process group (this must be called in the initialization of PyTorch DDP)
dist.init_process_group(init_method='tcp://' + str(self.config.master_addr) + ':' +
str(self.config.master_port), backend=Backend.GLOO, rank=self.global_rank, world_size=self.world_size)
...

# create active process group (yellow color)
self.active_process_group = dist.new_group(ranks=self.active_ranks, backend=Backend.NCCL, timeout=timedelta(days=365))
...

# create message process group (yellow color)
self.comm_broadcast_group = dist.new_group(ranks=[i for i in range(self.world_size)], backend=Backend.GLOO, timeout=timedelta(days=365))
...

# create DDP-enabled model when the number of data-parallel workers is changed. Note:
# 1. The process group to be used for distributed data all-reduction.
If None, the default process group, which is created by torch.distributed.init_process_group, will be used.
In our case, we set it as self.active_process_group
# 2. device_ids should be set when the pipeline length = 1 (the model resides on a single CUDA device).

self.pipe_len = gpu_num_per_process
if gpu_num_per_process > 1:
    model = DDP(model, process_group=self.active_process_group, find_unused_parameters=True)
else:
    model = DDP(model, device_ids=[self.local_rank], process_group=self.active_process_group, find_unused_parameters=True)

# to broadcast message among processes, we use dist.broadcast_object_list
def dist_broadcast(object_list, src, group):
    """Broadcasts a given object to all parties."""
    dist.broadcast_object_list(object_list, src, group=group)
    return object_list

For the complete source code, please refer to https://github.com/Distributed-AI/PipeTransformer/blob/master/pipe_transformer/dp/auto_dp.py.

Experiments

This section first summarizes experiment setups and then evaluates PipeTransformer using computer vision and natural language processing tasks.

Hardware. Experiments were conducted on 2 identical machines connected by InfiniBand CX353A (GB/s), where each machine is equipped with 8 NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (16GB GPU memory). GPU-to-GPU bandwidth within a machine (PCI 3.0, 16 lanes) is GB/s.

Implementation. We used PyTorch Pipe as a building block. The BERT model definition, configuration, and related tokenizer are from HuggingFace 3.5.0. We implemented Vision Transformer using PyTorch by following its TensorFlow implementation. More details can be found in our source code.

Models and Datasets. Experiments employ two representative Transformers in CV and NLP: Vision Transformer (ViT) and BERT. ViT was run on an image classification task, initialized with pre-trained weights on ImageNet21K and fine-tuned on ImageNet and CIFAR-100. BERT was run on two tasks, text classification on the SST-2 dataset from the General Language Understanding Evaluation (GLUE) benchmark, and question answering on the SQuAD v1.1 Dataset (Stanford Question Answering), which is a collection of 100k crowdsourced question/answer pairs.

Training Schemes. Given that large models normally would require thousands of GPU-days {emph{e.g.}, GPT-3) if trained from scratch, fine-tuning downstream tasks using pre-trained models has become a trend in CV and NLP communities. Moreover, PipeTransformer is a complex training system that involves multiple core components. Thus, for the first version of PipeTransformer system development and algorithmic research, it is not cost-efficient to develop and evaluate from scratch using large-scale pre-training. Therefore, the experiments presented in this section focuses on pre-trained models. Note that since the model architectures in pre-training and fine-tuning are the same, PipeTransformer can serve both. We discussed pre-training results in the Appendix.

Baseline. Experiments in this section compare PipeTransformer to the state-of-the-art framework, a hybrid scheme of PyTorch Pipeline (PyTorch’s implementation of GPipe) and PyTorch DDP. Since this is the first paper that studies accelerating distributed training by freezing layers, there are no perfectly aligned counterpart solutions yet.

Hyper-parameters. Experiments use ViT-B/16 (12 transformer layers, input patch size) for ImageNet and CIFAR-100, BERT-large-uncased (24 layers) for SQuAD 1.1, and BERT-base-uncased (12 layers) for SST-2. With PipeTransformer, ViT and BERT training can set the per-pipeline batch size to around 400 and 64, respectively. Other hyperparameters (e.g., epoch, learning rate) for all experiments are presented in Appendix.

Overall Training Acceleration

We summarize the overall experimental results in the table above. Note that the speedup we report is based on a conservative value that can obtain comparable or even higher accuracy. A more aggressive (, ) can obtain a higher speedup but may lead to a slight loss in accuracy. Note that the model size of BERT (24 layers) is larger than ViT-B/16 (12 layers), thus it takes more time for communication.

Performance Analysis

Speedup Breakdown

This section presents evaluation results and analyzes the performance of different components in autopipe. More experimental results can be found in the Appendix.

Figure 9. Speedup Breakdown (ViT on ImageNet)

To understand the efficacy of all four components and their impacts on training speed, we experimented with different combinations and used their training sample throughput (samples/second) and speedup ratio as metrics. Results are illustrated in Figure 9. Key takeaways from these experimental results are:

1. the main speedup is the result of elastic pipelining which is achieved through the joint use of AutoPipe and AutoDP;
2. AutoCache’s contribution is amplified by AutoDP;
3. freeze training alone without system-wise adjustment even downgrades the training speed.

Tuning in Freezing Algorithm

Figure 10. Tuning in Freezing Algorithm

We ran experiments to show how the in the freeze algorithms influences training speed. The result clearly demonstrates that a larger (excessive freeze) leads to a greater speedup but suffers from a slight performance degradation. In the case shown in Figure 10, where , freeze training outperforms normal training and obtains a -fold speedup. We provide more results in the Appendix.

Optimal Chunks in the elastic pipeline

Figure 11. Optimal chunk number in the elastic pipeline

We profiled the optimal number of micro-batches for different pipeline lengths . Results are summarized in Figure 11. As we can see, different values lead to different optimal , and the throughput gaps across different M values are large (as shown when ), which confirms the necessity of an anterior profiler in elastic pipelining.

Understanding the Timing of Caching

Figure 12. the timing of caching

To evaluate AutoCache, we compared the sample throughput of training that activates AutoCache from epoch (blue) with the training job without AutoCache (red). Figure 12 shows that enabling caching too early can slow down training, as caching can be more expensive than the forward propagation on a small number of frozen layers. After more layers are frozen, caching activations clearly outperform the corresponding forward propagation. As a result, AutoCache uses a profiler to determine the proper timing to enable caching. In our system, for ViT (12 layers), caching starts from 3 frozen layers, while for BERT (24 layers), caching starts from 5 frozen layers.

For more detailed experimental analysis, please refer to our paper.

Summarization

This blog introduces PipeTransformer, a holistic solution that combines elastic pipeline-parallel and data-parallel for distributed training using PyTorch Distributed APIs. More specifically, PipeTransformer incrementally freezes layers in the pipeline, packs remaining active layers into fewer GPUs, and forks more pipeline replicas to increase the data-parallel width. Evaluations on ViT and BERT models show that compared to the state-of-the-art baseline, PipeTransformer attains up to 2.83× speedups without accuracy loss.

Reference

Read More