Add skip_first_wait to profiler.schedule (V2) #141512
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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/141512
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ✅ No FailuresAs of commit 63136ab with merge base 6d4cd3e ( This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D66465860 |
sraikund16
added
topic: improvements
aaronenyeshi
approved these changes
Nov 25, 2024
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D66465860 |
sraikund16
force-pushed
the
export-D66465860
branch
from
a03a643 to
00bd4b3
Compare
sraikund16
added a commit
to sraikund16/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 26, 2024
Summary: Another try for D66198138. Original diff had some weird issue with type checking. Setting everything to int this time to get around it. Addresses pytorch#91888 We use wait as the amount you wait in between cycles when profiling and skip_first to delay the start of said profiling. However, once skip_first steps are completed, we immediately go to the wait phase. This is not problematic if wait is smaller than skip_first because we can just lower the values of skip_first, but if it is larger then we end up starting the first profile much later than desired. For example imagine a skip first of 1 and a wait of 100 with repeat of 2. We do want to wait 100 steps in between cycle 1 and 2 but we may not want to start warmup of cycle 1 at step 101 (forced because wait occurs directly after first steps skipped). This diff addresses this by adding a flag to skip the first wait. Adds new flag but sets to false by default so that existing impl is not affected. Test Plan: Got following traces with this schedule: schedule=torch.profiler.schedule( wait=10, warmup=3, active=1, repeat=1, skip_first=1, skip_first_wait=1 ) https://www.internalfb.com/intern/perfdoctor/trace_view?filepath=tree/traces/dynocli/devvm2185.cco0.facebook.com/rank-0.Nov_19_14_38_09.417495.pt.trace.json.gz&bucket=gpu_traces https://www.internalfb.com/intern/perfdoctor/trace_view?filepath=tree/traces/dynocli/devvm2185.cco0.facebook.com/rank-0.Nov_19_14_29_32.337974.pt.trace.json.gz&bucket=gpu_traces Reviewed By: aaronenyeshi Differential Revision: D66465860
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D66465860 |
sraikund16
force-pushed
the
export-D66465860
branch
from
00bd4b3 to
008c2e2
Compare
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D66465860 |
Summary: Another try for D66198138. Original diff had some weird issue with type checking. Setting everything to int this time to get around it. Addresses pytorch#91888 We use wait as the amount you wait in between cycles when profiling and skip_first to delay the start of said profiling. However, once skip_first steps are completed, we immediately go to the wait phase. This is not problematic if wait is smaller than skip_first because we can just lower the values of skip_first, but if it is larger then we end up starting the first profile much later than desired. For example imagine a skip first of 1 and a wait of 100 with repeat of 2. We do want to wait 100 steps in between cycle 1 and 2 but we may not want to start warmup of cycle 1 at step 101 (forced because wait occurs directly after first steps skipped). This diff addresses this by adding a flag to skip the first wait. Adds new flag but sets to false by default so that existing impl is not affected. Test Plan: Got following traces with this schedule: schedule=torch.profiler.schedule( wait=10, warmup=3, active=1, repeat=1, skip_first=1, skip_first_wait=1 ) https://www.internalfb.com/intern/perfdoctor/trace_view?filepath=tree/traces/dynocli/devvm2185.cco0.facebook.com/rank-0.Nov_19_14_38_09.417495.pt.trace.json.gz&bucket=gpu_traces https://www.internalfb.com/intern/perfdoctor/trace_view?filepath=tree/traces/dynocli/devvm2185.cco0.facebook.com/rank-0.Nov_19_14_29_32.337974.pt.trace.json.gz&bucket=gpu_traces Reviewed By: aaronenyeshi Differential Revision: D66465860
sraikund16
force-pushed
the
export-D66465860
branch
from
008c2e2 to
63136ab
Compare
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D66465860 |
1 similar comment
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D66465860 |
|
@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 |
pobin6
pushed a commit
to pobin6/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2024
Summary: Another try for D66198138. Original diff had some weird issue with type checking. Setting everything to int this time to get around it. Addresses pytorch#91888 We use wait as the amount you wait in between cycles when profiling and skip_first to delay the start of said profiling. However, once skip_first steps are completed, we immediately go to the wait phase. This is not problematic if wait is smaller than skip_first because we can just lower the values of skip_first, but if it is larger then we end up starting the first profile much later than desired. For example imagine a skip first of 1 and a wait of 100 with repeat of 2. We do want to wait 100 steps in between cycle 1 and 2 but we may not want to start warmup of cycle 1 at step 101 (forced because wait occurs directly after first steps skipped). This diff addresses this by adding a flag to skip the first wait. Adds new flag but sets to false by default so that existing impl is not affected. Test Plan: Got following traces with this schedule: schedule=torch.profiler.schedule( wait=10, warmup=3, active=1, repeat=1, skip_first=1, skip_first_wait=1 ) Differential Revision: D66465860 Pull Request resolved: pytorch#141512 Approved by: https://github.com/aaronenyeshi
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
Summary:
Another try for D66198138. Original diff had some weird issue with type checking. Setting everything to int this time to get around it.
Addresses #91888
We use wait as the amount you wait in between cycles when profiling and skip_first to delay the start of said profiling. However, once skip_first steps are completed, we immediately go to the wait phase. This is not problematic if wait is smaller than skip_first because we can just lower the values of skip_first, but if it is larger then we end up starting the first profile much later than desired. For example imagine a skip first of 1 and a wait of 100 with repeat of 2. We do want to wait 100 steps in between cycle 1 and 2 but we may not want to start warmup of cycle 1 at step 101 (forced because wait occurs directly after first steps skipped). This diff addresses this by adding a flag to skip the first wait.
Adds new flag but sets to false by default so that existing impl is not affected.
Test Plan:
Got following traces with this schedule:
schedule=torch.profiler.schedule(
wait=10, warmup=3, active=1, repeat=1, skip_first=1, skip_first_wait=1
)
Differential Revision: D66465860