alternative functorch fix #531
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
facebook-github-bot
added
the
CLA Signed
facebook-github-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2022
Summary:
*The investigation part for this PR was done by alexandresablayrolles, thanks for figuring out the reason the tests were failing*
## Background
Current implementation of functorch-based per sample gradients fails on modules which have both trainable non-recursive parameters and standard submodules, e.g. below
```
class LinearWithExtraParam(nn.Module):
def __init__(self, in_features: int, out_features: int, hidden_dim: int = 8):
super().__init__()
self.fc = nn.Linear(in_features, hidden_dim)
self.extra_param = nn.Parameter(torch.randn(hidden_dim, out_features))
def forward(self, x):
x = self.fc(x)
x = x.matmul(self.extra_param)
return x
```
The reason is - functorch hook actually computes gradients for recursive submodules too. The problem is, normal hooks are also attached to these submodules. GradSampleModule then sees two grad_sample tensors, thinks it needs to accumulate and adds them up together
## Solution(s)
There are essentially two ways we can fix this: either make functorch compute per sample gradients for non-recursive parameters only or don't attach normal hooks to submodules where the parent module is handled by functorch.
This diff implements the latter option (reasoning below), for demo purposes the former option can be seen in #531
For the pure code perspective the former option (let's call it "non-recursive functorch") is more appealing to me. It better fits the existing paradigm and matches normal hooks behaviour - all of the existing code only deals with the immediate non-recursive parameters.
However, it doesn't make much sense from the efficiency perspective. "non-recursive functorch" would do all the work to compute per-sample gradients for its submodules, only for them to be filtered out at the very last stage.
Alternative option (a.k.a. "functorch for subtrees") does involve a bit more convoluted
This has a noticeable effect on performance.
Below is the results of MNIST benchmarks with different configurations. I've tested this with different configurations, because at the end of the day, the impact on performance depends on how deep are subtrees
* Standard model- our model from MNIST example, standard layers only (2 conv + 2 linear). No overhead expected, functorch doesn't kick in
* Mid-level model - leaf nodes (two linear layers) have one extra param and are computed with functorch. Overhead: 2x Linear hook
* Extreme model - root model have one extra param and needs to be handled by functorch. Overhead: 2x linear hook + 2x conv hook
| Mode | non-recursive functorch | functorch for subtrees |
|:-----------------------:|:------------------------:|:-----------------------:|
| Standard model (CPU) | 138s | 136s |
| Standard model (GPU) | 149s | 150s |
| Mid-level model (CPU) | 157s | 150s |
| Mid-level model (GPU) | 100s | 97s |
| Extreme model (CPU) | 207s | 172s |
| Extreme model (GPU) | 101s | 94s |
Pull Request resolved: #510
Reviewed By: alexandresablayrolles
Differential Revision: D39579487
Pulled By: ffuuugor
fbshipit-source-id: 1b089bd04ab110174a1f2ebb371380eb2ce76054
psolikov
pushed a commit
to psolikov/opacus
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 1, 2022
Summary:
*The investigation part for this PR was done by alexandresablayrolles, thanks for figuring out the reason the tests were failing*
## Background
Current implementation of functorch-based per sample gradients fails on modules which have both trainable non-recursive parameters and standard submodules, e.g. below
```
class LinearWithExtraParam(nn.Module):
def __init__(self, in_features: int, out_features: int, hidden_dim: int = 8):
super().__init__()
self.fc = nn.Linear(in_features, hidden_dim)
self.extra_param = nn.Parameter(torch.randn(hidden_dim, out_features))
def forward(self, x):
x = self.fc(x)
x = x.matmul(self.extra_param)
return x
```
The reason is - functorch hook actually computes gradients for recursive submodules too. The problem is, normal hooks are also attached to these submodules. GradSampleModule then sees two grad_sample tensors, thinks it needs to accumulate and adds them up together
## Solution(s)
There are essentially two ways we can fix this: either make functorch compute per sample gradients for non-recursive parameters only or don't attach normal hooks to submodules where the parent module is handled by functorch.
This diff implements the latter option (reasoning below), for demo purposes the former option can be seen in pytorch#531
For the pure code perspective the former option (let's call it "non-recursive functorch") is more appealing to me. It better fits the existing paradigm and matches normal hooks behaviour - all of the existing code only deals with the immediate non-recursive parameters.
However, it doesn't make much sense from the efficiency perspective. "non-recursive functorch" would do all the work to compute per-sample gradients for its submodules, only for them to be filtered out at the very last stage.
Alternative option (a.k.a. "functorch for subtrees") does involve a bit more convoluted
This has a noticeable effect on performance.
Below is the results of MNIST benchmarks with different configurations. I've tested this with different configurations, because at the end of the day, the impact on performance depends on how deep are subtrees
* Standard model- our model from MNIST example, standard layers only (2 conv + 2 linear). No overhead expected, functorch doesn't kick in
* Mid-level model - leaf nodes (two linear layers) have one extra param and are computed with functorch. Overhead: 2x Linear hook
* Extreme model - root model have one extra param and needs to be handled by functorch. Overhead: 2x linear hook + 2x conv hook
| Mode | non-recursive functorch | functorch for subtrees |
|:-----------------------:|:------------------------:|:-----------------------:|
| Standard model (CPU) | 138s | 136s |
| Standard model (GPU) | 149s | 150s |
| Mid-level model (CPU) | 157s | 150s |
| Mid-level model (GPU) | 100s | 97s |
| Extreme model (CPU) | 207s | 172s |
| Extreme model (GPU) | 101s | 94s |
Pull Request resolved: pytorch#510
Reviewed By: alexandresablayrolles
Differential Revision: D39579487
Pulled By: ffuuugor
fbshipit-source-id: 1b089bd04ab110174a1f2ebb371380eb2ce76054
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Types of changes
Motivation and Context / Related issue
How Has This Been Tested (if it applies)
Checklist