Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
131 lines (78 loc) · 10.2 KB

BENCHMARKS.md

File metadata and controls

131 lines (78 loc) · 10.2 KB
Raw

Benchmarks: how to and some results

Benchmark a full encoder block

Sweeping over different attention settings to log max memory use and runtime can for instance be done by invoking python3 xformers/benchmarks/benchmark_encoder.py. Specifying a subset to test is done through command line arguments, for instance python3 xformers/benchmarks/benchmark_encoder.py --causal True --attentions random --activations gelu -fp16 True.

Please note that:

  • These numbers are dependent of hyperparameters (dimensions chosen for Linformer, sparsity of the pattern), they are mostly an illustration
  • The sparse attention patterns tested here are just presets, as explained in the linked notebook generating any new sparse attention pattern should be relatively easy, while keeping the benefits of optimized computations.

Some examples, generated with python3 xformers/benchmarks/benchmark_encoder.py --activations gelu --plot -emb 256 -bs 8 -heads 4

Memory use for different attentions Runtime for different attentions

Benchmark the core sparse attention mechanisms

python3 xformers./benchmarks/benchmark_core.py will measure the speed of the core sparse attention mechanism. The current numbers are as follows (times in microseconds (us)):

matmul_with_mask softmax bmm
B=8, M=256, K=128 B=8, M=1024, K=256 B=8, M=256, K=128 B=8, M=1024, K=256 B=8, M=256, K=128 B=8, M=1024, K=256
dense 62.3 510.3 12.8 141.9 31.0 590.7
dense with masking 84.2 805.3 - - - -
sparsity pytorch: 0.50 392.4 6197.4 1140.9 8081.4 577.0 13830.2
sparsity pytorch: 0.80 336.2 4437.3 515.0 3494.8 254.4 5944.0
sparsity pytorch: 0.90 244.1 3017.4 367.3 1932.6 162.0 3063.0
sparsity pytorch: 0.95 193.2 1899.5 293.6 1078.9 161.6 1692.3
sparsity pytorch: 0.99 195.6 695.0 252.1 342.4 161.9 433.4
sparsity sputnik: 0.50 77.9 1695.9 32.8 164.7 64.6 1640.5
sparsity sputnik: 0.80 43.8 793.0 32.9 50.8 39.6 703.3
sparsity sputnik: 0.90 43.6 435.5 33.0 33.5 39.6 391.4
sparsity sputnik: 0.95 43.2 258.6 32.5 32.7 39.7 223.6
sparsity sputnik: 0.99 43.5 145.4 33.2 32.7 39.7 77.4

Triton layers

Fused softmax

You can reproduce these numbers locally by running python3 xformers/benchmarks/benchmark_triton_softmax.py. The units are GB/s. These results are for a laptop nVidia 3080, Triton 1.1 and PyTorch 1.10.

Softmax throughput in fp16 - inference

Softmax throughput in fp16 - training

Softmax throughput in fp32 - inference

Softmax throughput in fp32 - training

Fused linear layer

You can reproduce these numbers locally by running python3 xformers/benchmarks/benchmark_triton_fused_linear_layer.py. The units are TFlops/s. These results are for a laptop nVidia 3080, Triton 1.1 and PyTorch 1.10.

Fused linear layers throughput in fp16 - inference

Fused linear layers throughput in fp16 - training

Fused linear layers throughput in fp16 - inference

Fused linear layers throughput in fp16 - training

Fused linear layers throughput in fp16 - inference

Fused linear layers throughput in fp16 - training

Fused linear layers throughput in fp16 - inference

Fused linear layers throughput in fp16 - training

Fused linear layers throughput in fp16 - inference

Fused linear layers throughput in fp16 - training

Fused layer norm

You can reproduce these numbers locally by running python3 xformers/benchmarks/benchmark_triton_layernorm.py. The units are GB/s. These results are for a laptop nVidia 3080, Triton 1.1 and PyTorch 1.10.

Fused layer norm throughput in fp16 - inference

Fused layer norm throughput in fp16 - training)

Fused layer norm throughput in fp32 - inference)

Fused layer norm throughput in fp32 - training)

Fused dropout + bias + activation

You can reproduce these numbers locally by running python3 xformers/benchmarks/benchmark_triton_dropout.py. The units are GB/s. These results are for a laptop nVidia 3080, Triton 1.1 and PyTorch 1.10.

Fused dropout+ bias throughput in fp16 - inference

Fused dropout+ bias throughput in fp16 - training)

Fused dropout+ bias throughput in fp32 - inference)

Fused dropout+ bias throughput in fp32 - training)

Fused dropout+ bias throughput in fp16 - inference

Fused dropout+ bias throughput in fp16 - training)

Fused dropout+ bias throughput in fp32 - inference)

Fused dropout+ bias throughput in fp32 - training)

LRA

The code for this benchmark has been adapted from this repository. A dedicated README is available here

Some results:

Attention ListOps Text Retrieval Image Pathfinder Avg Est. Gflops Peak mem (mb)
Chance 10 50 50 10 50 34 0 0
Standard 37.5 62.66 79.24 38.69 70.37 57.69 1.21 2291
Nystromformer-128 36.29 63.24 78.18 42.86 67.49 57.61 0.62 383
Favor-256 (redraw) 19.56 62.76 81.1 36.09 67.23 53.35 0.49 445
FourierMix 36.29 60.72 76.41 36.53 54.07 52.8 0.17 87
Linformer-seq/4 (no redraw) 36.69 57.39 76.41 35.57 65.12 54.2 0.67 719
Lambda 19.76 62.47 79.11 35.04 49.74 49.224 x 1023
Orthoformer-32 27.42 63.96 77.96 34.5 67.11 54.19 0.187 155
  • Contrary to the initial LRA proposal, we use the same model architecture for all tasks (2 layers).
  • The training schedule for ListOps has been lengthened, while keeping it the fastest of all tasks, which reduces the seed dependence in the final accuracy figure.
  • Estimated flops and peak memory are on the ListOps task, using 4 GPUs. Note that LRA is not completely well defined, in that hyperparameters and model architectures can vary (should the same architecture be used everywhere ? Similar hyperparams ?). This could be improved in the future, but in the meantime one should probably not read too much into small differences for some tasks, probably not meaningful.

Note: The estimated flops currently miss accounting for many operators, and are almost certainly an undercount. See issue #154