[einsum] keep the promise that we contract left to right #87199
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
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/87199
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ❌ 1 Failures, 6 PendingAs of commit 62069ec: This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
|
@pytorchbot merge -f "existing master failures" |
Merge startedYour change will be merged immediately since you used the force (-f) flag, bypassing any CI checks (ETA: 1-5 minutes). Learn more about merging in the wiki. Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team |
|
Hey @janeyx99. |
janeyx99
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2022
We promise that if path is not defined, we would go left to right. The previous code did not keep that promise as we push'd combined ops to the back of the list. For most use cases this is fine (einsum with 3 or fewer inputs), but we should do what we say.
Test plan:
Added a print statement to print the sizes of ops we're contracting to see if the order is fixed. Code run:
```
import torch
a = torch.rand(1)
b = torch.rand(2)
c = torch.rand(3)
d = torch.rand(4)
torch.einsum('a,b,c,d->abcd', a,b,c,d)
```
BEFORE--it does a+b, then c+d, then a+b+c+d, which...is right, but it's not the order specified by the user.
```
/Users/janeyx/pytorch/torch/functional.py:378: UserWarning: Contracting a: [1, 1, 1, 1]and b: [1, 2, 1, 1] (Triggered internally at /Users/janeyx/pytorch/aten/src/ATen/native/Linear.cpp:507.)
return _VF.einsum(equation, operands) # type: ignore[attr-defined]
/Users/janeyx/pytorch/torch/functional.py:378: UserWarning: Contracting a: [1, 1, 3, 1]and b: [1, 1, 1, 4] (Triggered internally at /Users/janeyx/pytorch/aten/src/ATen/native/Linear.cpp:507.)
return _VF.einsum(equation, operands) # type: ignore[attr-defined]
/Users/janeyx/pytorch/torch/functional.py:378: UserWarning: Contracting a: [1, 2, 1, 1]and b: [1, 1, 3, 4] (Triggered internally at /Users/janeyx/pytorch/aten/src/ATen/native/Linear.cpp:507.)
return _VF.einsum(equation, operands) # type: ignore[attr-defined]
```
WITH THIS CHANGE--it actually goes left to right: a+b, a+b+c, a+b+c+d
```
/Users/janeyx/pytorch/torch/functional.py:378: UserWarning: Contracting a: [1, 1, 1, 1]and b: [1, 2, 1, 1] (Triggered internally at /Users/janeyx/pytorch/aten/src/ATen/native/Linear.cpp:507.)
return _VF.einsum(equation, operands) # type: ignore[attr-defined]
/Users/janeyx/pytorch/torch/functional.py:378: UserWarning: Contracting a: [1, 2, 1, 1]and b: [1, 1, 3, 1] (Triggered internally at /Users/janeyx/pytorch/aten/src/ATen/native/Linear.cpp:507.)
return _VF.einsum(equation, operands) # type: ignore[attr-defined]
/Users/janeyx/pytorch/torch/functional.py:378: UserWarning: Contracting a: [1, 2, 3, 1]and b: [1, 1, 1, 4] (Triggered internally at /Users/janeyx/pytorch/aten/src/ATen/native/Linear.cpp:507.)
return _VF.einsum(equation, operands) # type: ignore[attr-defined]
```
Pull Request resolved: #87199
Approved by: https://github.com/soulitzer
This was referenced Oct 19, 2022
atalman
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2022
…path is None (#87261) * [einsum] keep the promise that we contract left to right (#87199) We promise that if path is not defined, we would go left to right. The previous code did not keep that promise as we push'd combined ops to the back of the list. For most use cases this is fine (einsum with 3 or fewer inputs), but we should do what we say. Test plan: Added a print statement to print the sizes of ops we're contracting to see if the order is fixed. Code run: ``` import torch a = torch.rand(1) b = torch.rand(2) c = torch.rand(3) d = torch.rand(4) torch.einsum('a,b,c,d->abcd', a,b,c,d) ``` BEFORE--it does a+b, then c+d, then a+b+c+d, which...is right, but it's not the order specified by the user. ``` /Users/janeyx/pytorch/torch/functional.py:378: UserWarning: Contracting a: [1, 1, 1, 1]and b: [1, 2, 1, 1] (Triggered internally at /Users/janeyx/pytorch/aten/src/ATen/native/Linear.cpp:507.) return _VF.einsum(equation, operands) # type: ignore[attr-defined] /Users/janeyx/pytorch/torch/functional.py:378: UserWarning: Contracting a: [1, 1, 3, 1]and b: [1, 1, 1, 4] (Triggered internally at /Users/janeyx/pytorch/aten/src/ATen/native/Linear.cpp:507.) return _VF.einsum(equation, operands) # type: ignore[attr-defined] /Users/janeyx/pytorch/torch/functional.py:378: UserWarning: Contracting a: [1, 2, 1, 1]and b: [1, 1, 3, 4] (Triggered internally at /Users/janeyx/pytorch/aten/src/ATen/native/Linear.cpp:507.) return _VF.einsum(equation, operands) # type: ignore[attr-defined] ``` WITH THIS CHANGE--it actually goes left to right: a+b, a+b+c, a+b+c+d ``` /Users/janeyx/pytorch/torch/functional.py:378: UserWarning: Contracting a: [1, 1, 1, 1]and b: [1, 2, 1, 1] (Triggered internally at /Users/janeyx/pytorch/aten/src/ATen/native/Linear.cpp:507.) return _VF.einsum(equation, operands) # type: ignore[attr-defined] /Users/janeyx/pytorch/torch/functional.py:378: UserWarning: Contracting a: [1, 2, 1, 1]and b: [1, 1, 3, 1] (Triggered internally at /Users/janeyx/pytorch/aten/src/ATen/native/Linear.cpp:507.) return _VF.einsum(equation, operands) # type: ignore[attr-defined] /Users/janeyx/pytorch/torch/functional.py:378: UserWarning: Contracting a: [1, 2, 3, 1]and b: [1, 1, 1, 4] (Triggered internally at /Users/janeyx/pytorch/aten/src/ATen/native/Linear.cpp:507.) return _VF.einsum(equation, operands) # type: ignore[attr-defined] ``` Pull Request resolved: #87199 Approved by: https://github.com/soulitzer * [einsum] Call view instead of sum to remediate MPS regression (#87135) Fixes #87010. It turns out that squeeze is much faster than sum, and view is faster than squeeze, so we should default to that whenever possible. Benchmarking results show that, on MPS, we would be going from the following code taking **29.89ms instead of the current 1466ms, almost a 50x speedup**. ``` q = torch.rand(16, 4096, 40, device='mps', dtype=torch.float) k = torch.rand(16, 4096, 40, device='mps', dtype=torch.float) torch.einsum('b i d, b j d -> b i j', q, k).max().item() ``` And a regular einsum will now take **.506ms instead of 2.76ms.** ``` q = torch.rand(16, 4096, 40, device='mps', dtype=torch.float) k = torch.rand(16, 4096, 40, device='mps', dtype=torch.float) torch.einsum('b i d, b j d -> b i j', q, k) ``` Special thanks to @soulitzer for helping me experiment + figure out how to squash the remaining 5x regression due to squeeze being slower than view!! Pull Request resolved: #87135 Approved by: https://github.com/soulitzer, https://github.com/malfet, https://github.com/albanD
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.
We promise that if path is not defined, we would go left to right. The previous code did not keep that promise as we push'd combined ops to the back of the list. For most use cases this is fine (einsum with 3 or fewer inputs), but we should do what we say.
Test plan:
Added a print statement to print the sizes of ops we're contracting to see if the order is fixed. Code run:
BEFORE--it does a+b, then c+d, then a+b+c+d, which...is right, but it's not the order specified by the user.
WITH THIS CHANGE--it actually goes left to right: a+b, a+b+c, a+b+c+d