-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26.3k
E2E composability testing #141398
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
E2E composability testing #141398
Conversation
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/141398
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ✅ No FailuresAs of commit bc5ef3d with merge base d99c9c2 ( This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
wconstab
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for working on this. There are a few issues that need to be addressed, with comments inline. The main themes are
- parallelisms aren't applied correctly, since the test uses MLPModel but the helpers expect llama model
- the organization can be improved- combine with other composability tests, reduce copied helpers
test/distributed/_composable/test_composability/test_3d_composability.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
test/distributed/_composable/test_composability/test_3d_composability.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
test/distributed/_composable/test_composability/test_3d_composability.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
test/distributed/_composable/test_composability/test_3d_composability.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
test/distributed/_composable/test_composability/test_3d_composability.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
test/distributed/_composable/test_composability/test_pp_composability.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
test/distributed/_composable/test_composability/test_pp_composability.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
note: not in this PR, but we might want to clean this pp init stuff up later. we should get rid of the 'single' vs 'multi' base classes and make it easier to construct a schedule without so many lines of boilerplate. Or maybe i'm wrong and single vs multi is legitimately worth having different init flows for?? cc @H-Huang
wconstab
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
overall LGTM. thanks for all the improvements! Can you check with @awgu and @kwen2501 also for any more combinations of pp/fsdp that are important to include in the testing?
One follow up i think is to add fp8. It can probably be an extension of this test function with one more parameterization, and in another PR.
|
@pytorchbot rebase |
|
@pytorchbot started a rebase job onto refs/remotes/origin/viable/strict. Check the current status here |
|
Successfully rebased |
8931de1 to
cd946ad
Compare
kwen2501
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM.
|
|
||
| # create "entire model" | ||
| total_layers = 8 | ||
| dim = 8 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: consider using dim in your model definition?
| super().__init__() | ||
| self.net1 = nn.Linear(8, 8) | ||
| self.net2 = nn.Linear(8, 8) | ||
| self.net3 = nn.Linear(8, 16) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To answer your q, here you have to use 16 because of the colwise you apply to net3.
|
@pytorchbot merge |
Merge startedYour change will be merged once all checks pass (ETA 0-4 Hours). Learn more about merging in the wiki. Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team |
|
@mori360 has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
|
@pytorchbot merge (Initiating merge automatically since Phabricator Diff has merged) |
Merge startedYour change will be merged once all checks pass (ETA 0-4 Hours). Learn more about merging in the wiki. Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team |
Merge failedReason: 1 jobs have failed, first few of them are: Meta Internal-Only Changes Check Details for Dev Infra teamRaised by workflow job |
|
@pytorchbot merge -f "internal diff landed" |
Merge startedYour change will be merged immediately since you used the force (-f) flag, bypassing any CI checks (ETA: 1-5 minutes). Please use Learn more about merging in the wiki. Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team |
Add 3D(pp+tp+fsdp) test
test_3d_with_tp_dp_ppat test_pp_compodabilityCurrently provide @parametrize on
"ScheduleClass" for pp in [ScheduleGPipe, Schedule1F1B, ScheduleInterleaved1F1B, ScheduleLoopedBFS, ScheduleInterleavedZeroBubble]
"MixedPrecisionParam" for fsdp in [torch.bfloat16, torch.float32]
Future work:
cc @H-Huang @awgu @kwen2501 @wanchaol @fegin @fduwjj @wz337 @wconstab @d4l3k @c-p-i-o @jgong5 @mingfeima @XiaobingSuper @sanchitintel @ashokei @jingxu10 @voznesenskym @penguinwu @EikanWang @Guobing-Chen @zhuhaozhe @blzheng @wenzhe-nrv @jiayisunx @ipiszy @yf225 @chenyang78 @kadeng @muchulee8 @ColinPeppler @amjames @desertfire @chauhang @aakhundov