Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/74261
### Goal
Implement a cheap way to reclaim GPU memory (garbage collection) without incurring GPU sync.
### Why do we need this?
Currently, there are only two ways to reclaim GPU memory block already assigned to a particular stream.
- `release_available_cached_blocks(params)`: Free blocks exceeding the `CachingAllocatorConfig::max_split_size()` until we can satisfy the request.
Issue: If the `max_split_size` is unset (default), this function is a no-op. Even if this is set, the reclamation is quite conservative (e.g., never frees blocks under max_split_size).
- `release_cached_blocks()`: Waits for all the in-flight events and then reclaim blocks.
Issue: 'waiting for all event' is very expensive as it will likely stall all the GPU operations. Many GPU applications without a proper handling of potential GPU throttling would suffer/crash.
### Proposed idea
- If the garbage collection threshold is set, try to reclaim some memory blocks *without* synchronization. It should be safe to do so, as `release_available_cached_blocks` essentially does the same thing (but less aggressively).
- GC is triggered only when we fail to serve a `malloc` request from the block pool. No need to free blocks when the block pool is functioning just fine.
- Prioritize reclaiming blocks that weren't reused for long time. Reclamation stops once the used memory capacity < threshold.
- This code path is totally optional; by default it won't be invoked.
Test Plan:
- Unit tests
- Manually checked that the GPU memory usage stays as indicated by the garbage collector. If not the caching allocator at least tries to keep freeing the blocks.
Reviewed By: jianyuh
Differential Revision: D34482514
fbshipit-source-id: d5eae62ac60b94b0bca851f9d233a092d086e3c2
(cherry picked from commit 05780f1ed4b176f05e765b2411c9eaa2eaeb48b0)
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/74213
In the current CUDACachingAllocator, the sizes are rounded up in multiple of blocks size of 512, so this works for smaller sizes. However for large sizes, we can have lots of different size blocks in the larger pool. This is problematic when we have variable batch sizes 1001, 1021, 1023 -> all will go to different block size and will create different size of blocks. This will create lots of unused blocks and will waste GPU memory capacity.
This diff adds a rounding approach to allocation size. It rounds up the size to nearest power-of-2 divisions and the power2-division can be changed with env variable setting.
For example, if we need to round-up size of1200 and if number of divisions is 4,
the size 1200 lies between 1024 and 2048 and if we do 4 divisions between
them, the values are 1024, 1280, 1536, and 1792. So the function will
return 1280 as the nearest ceiling of power-2 division.
env setting:
export PYTORCH_CUDA_ALLOC_CONF=roundup_power2_divisions:4
ghstack-source-id: 151446017
Reviewed By: ezyang
Differential Revision: D34868036
fbshipit-source-id: 494785add16e6b37c920dcb5a2b81d4c637b554a
(cherry picked from commit 548454ccacbd8700e7ffd2d762e40b4ba37abbae)
Summary:
It is probably the most user friendly to link to that (lesser known?) feature.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/72584
Reviewed By: soulitzer
Differential Revision: D34173999
Pulled By: albanD
fbshipit-source-id: 99fff7a55412faf54888f8317ab2388f4d7d30e4
(cherry picked from commit 2191ee7657)
Summary:
https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/67578 disabled reduced precision reductions for FP16 GEMMs. After benchmarking, we've found that this has substantial performance impacts for common GEMM shapes (e.g., those found in popular instantiations of multiheaded-attention) on architectures such as Volta. As these performance regressions may come as a surprise to current users, this PR adds a toggle to disable reduced precision reductions
`torch.backends.cuda.matmul.allow_fp16_reduced_precision_reduction = `
rather than making it the default behavior.
CC ngimel ptrblck
stas00 Note that the behavior after the previous PR can be replicated with
`torch.backends.cuda.matmul.allow_fp16_reduced_precision_reduction = False`
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/67946
Reviewed By: zou3519
Differential Revision: D32289896
Pulled By: ngimel
fbshipit-source-id: a1ea2918b77e27a7d9b391e030417802a0174abe
Summary:
Related to https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/30987. Fix the following task:
- [ ] Remove the use of `.data` in all our internal code:
- [ ] ...
- [x] `docs/source/scripts/build_activation_images.py` and `docs/source/notes/extending.rst`
In `docs/source/scripts/build_activation_images.py`, I used `nn.init` because the snippet already assumes `nn` is available (the class inherits from `nn.Module`).
cc albanD
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/65358
Reviewed By: malfet
Differential Revision: D31061790
Pulled By: albanD
fbshipit-source-id: be936c2035f0bdd49986351026fe3e932a5b4032
Summary:
Powers have decided this API should be listed as beta.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/65247
Reviewed By: malfet
Differential Revision: D31057940
Pulled By: ngimel
fbshipit-source-id: 137b63cbd2c7409fecdc161a22135619bfc96bfa
Summary:
Puts memory sharing intro under Sharing memory... header, where it should have been all along.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/64996
Reviewed By: mruberry
Differential Revision: D30948619
Pulled By: ngimel
fbshipit-source-id: 5d9dd267b34e9d3fc499d4738377b58a22da1dc2
Summary:
This PR expands the [note on modules](https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/notes/modules.html) with additional info for 1.10.
It adds the following:
* Examples of using hooks
* Examples of using apply()
* Examples for ParameterList / ParameterDict
* register_parameter() / register_buffer() usage
* Discussion of train() / eval() modes
* Distributed training overview / links
* TorchScript overview / links
* Quantization overview / links
* FX overview / links
* Parametrization overview / link to tutorial
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/63963
Reviewed By: albanD
Differential Revision: D30606604
Pulled By: jbschlosser
fbshipit-source-id: c1030b19162bcb5fe7364bcdc981a2eb6d6e89b4
Summary:
CUDA_VERSION and HIP_VERSION follow very unrelated versioning schemes, so it does not make sense to use CUDA_VERSION to determine the ROCm path. This note explicitly addresses it.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/62850
Reviewed By: mruberry
Differential Revision: D30547562
Pulled By: malfet
fbshipit-source-id: 02990fa66a88466c2330ab85f446b25b78545150
Summary:
- Adds some code examples for `ctx` methods and make requirements of arguments more clear
- Type annotations for `save_for_backward`, `mark_dirty`, `mark_non_differentiable`, and `set_materialize_grads` (BC-breaking?)
- Refactor `torch.autograd.Function` doc
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/60312
Reviewed By: VitalyFedyunin
Differential Revision: D30314961
Pulled By: soulitzer
fbshipit-source-id: a284314b65662e26390417bd2b6b12cd85e68dc8
Summary:
This FAQ has a section for CUDA OOMs where there are lots of don'ts. This limits modeling solution. Deep nets can blow up memory due to output caching during training.
It's a known problem with a known solution: to trade-off compute for memory via checkpointing.
FAQ should mention it.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/62709
Reviewed By: nairbv
Differential Revision: D30103326
Pulled By: ezyang
fbshipit-source-id: 3a8b465a7fbe19aae88f83cc50fe82ebafcb56c9
Summary:
Before https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/57833, calls to backward() or grad() synced only the calling thread's default stream with autograd leaf streams at the end of backward. This made the following weird pattern safe:
```python
with torch.cuda.stream(s):
# imagine forward used many streams, so backward leaf nodes may run on many streams
loss.backward()
# no sync
use grads
```
but a more benign-looking pattern was unsafe:
```python
with torch.cuda.stream(s):
# imagine forward used a lot of streams, so backward leaf nodes may run on many streams
loss.backward()
# backward() syncs the default stream with all the leaf streams, but does not sync s with anything,
# so counterintuitively (even though we're in the same stream context as backward()!)
# it is NOT SAFE to use grads here, and there's no easy way to make it safe,
# unless you manually sync on all the streams you used in forward,
# or move "use grads" back to default stream outside the context.
use grads
```
mruberry ngimel and I decided backward() should have the [same user-facing stream semantics as any cuda op](https://pytorch.org/docs/master/notes/cuda.html#stream-semantics-of-backward-passes).** In other words, the weird pattern should be unsafe, and the benign-looking pattern should be safe. Implementationwise, this meant backward() should sync its calling thread's current stream, not default stream, with the leaf streams.
After https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/57833, backward syncs the calling thread's current stream AND default stream with all leaf streams at the end of backward. The default stream syncs were retained for temporary backward compatibility.
This PR finishes https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/57833's work by deleting syncs on the default stream.
With this PR, graph-capturing an entire backward() call should be possible (see the [test_graph_grad_scaling diffs](https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/compare/master...mcarilli:streaming_backwards_remove_default_syncs?expand=1#diff-893b1eea27352f336f4cd832919e48d721e4e90186e63400b8596db6b82e7450R3641-R3642)).
** first paragraph has a formatting error which this PR should also fix.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/60421
Reviewed By: albanD
Differential Revision: D29370344
Pulled By: ngimel
fbshipit-source-id: 3248bc5fb92fc517db0c15c897e5d7250f67d7fe
Summary:
Before https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/57833, calls to backward() or grad() synced only the calling thread's default stream with autograd leaf streams at the end of backward. This made the following weird pattern safe:
```python
with torch.cuda.stream(s):
# imagine forward used many streams, so backward leaf nodes may run on many streams
loss.backward()
# no sync
use grads
```
but a more benign-looking pattern was unsafe:
```python
with torch.cuda.stream(s):
# imagine forward used a lot of streams, so backward leaf nodes may run on many streams
loss.backward()
# backward() syncs the default stream with all the leaf streams, but does not sync s with anything,
# so counterintuitively (even though we're in the same stream context as backward()!)
# it is NOT SAFE to use grads here, and there's no easy way to make it safe,
# unless you manually sync on all the streams you used in forward,
# or move "use grads" back to default stream outside the context.
use grads
```
mruberry ngimel and I decided backward() should have the [same user-facing stream semantics as any cuda op](https://pytorch.org/docs/master/notes/cuda.html#stream-semantics-of-backward-passes).** In other words, the weird pattern should be unsafe, and the benign-looking pattern should be safe. Implementationwise, this meant backward() should sync its calling thread's current stream, not default stream, with the leaf streams.
After https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/57833, backward syncs the calling thread's current stream AND default stream with all leaf streams at the end of backward. The default stream syncs were retained for temporary backward compatibility.
This PR finishes https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/57833's work by deleting syncs on the default stream.
With this PR, graph-capturing an entire backward() call should be possible (see the [test_graph_grad_scaling diffs](https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/compare/master...mcarilli:streaming_backwards_remove_default_syncs?expand=1#diff-893b1eea27352f336f4cd832919e48d721e4e90186e63400b8596db6b82e7450R3641-R3642)).
** first paragraph has a formatting error which this PR should also fix.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/60421
Reviewed By: VitalyFedyunin, albanD
Differential Revision: D29342234
Pulled By: ngimel
fbshipit-source-id: 98e6be7fdd8550872f0a78f9a66cb8dfe75abf63
Summary:
Fixes https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/35901
This change is designed to prevent fragmentation in the Caching Allocator. Permissive block splitting in the allocator allows very large blocks to be split into many pieces. Once split too finely it is unlikely all pieces will be 'free' at that same time so the original allocation can never be returned. Anecdotally, we've seen a model run out of memory failing to alloc a 50 MB block on a 32 GB card while the caching allocator is holding 13 GB of 'split free blocks'
Approach:
- Large blocks above a certain size are designated "oversize". This limit is currently set 1 decade above large, 200 MB
- Oversize blocks can not be split
- Oversize blocks must closely match the requested size (e.g. a 200 MB request will match an existing 205 MB block, but not a 300 MB block)
- In lieu of splitting oversize blocks there is a mechanism to quickly free a single oversize block (to the system allocator) to allow an appropriate size block to be allocated. This will be activated under memory pressure and will prevent _release_cached_blocks()_ from triggering
Initial performance tests show this is similar or quicker than the original strategy. Additional tests are ongoing.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/44742
Reviewed By: zou3519
Differential Revision: D29186394
Pulled By: ezyang
fbshipit-source-id: c88918836db3f51df59de6d1b3e03602ebe306a9
Summary:
Adds a note explaining the difference between several often conflated mechanisms in the autograd note
Also adds a link to this note from the docs in `grad_mode` and `nn.module`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/58513
Reviewed By: gchanan
Differential Revision: D28651129
Pulled By: soulitzer
fbshipit-source-id: af9eb1749b641fc1b632815634eea36bf7979156
Summary:
You can find the latest rendered version in the `python_doc_build` CI job below, in the artifact tab of that build on circle CI
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/55966
Reviewed By: H-Huang
Differential Revision: D28032446
Pulled By: albanD
fbshipit-source-id: 227ad37b03d39894d736c19cae3195b4d56fc62f
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/56528
Tried to search across internal and external usage of DataLoader. People haven't started to use `generator` for `DataLoader`.
Test Plan: Imported from OSS
Reviewed By: albanD
Differential Revision: D27908487
Pulled By: ejguan
fbshipit-source-id: 14c83ed40d4ba4dc988b121968a78c2732d8eb93
Summary:
Fixes https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/35901
This change is designed to prevent fragmentation in the Caching Allocator. Permissive block splitting in the allocator allows very large blocks to be split into many pieces. Once split too finely it is unlikely all pieces will be 'free' at that same time so the original allocation can never be returned. Anecdotally, we've seen a model run out of memory failing to alloc a 50 MB block on a 32 GB card while the caching allocator is holding 13 GB of 'split free blocks'
Approach:
- Large blocks above a certain size are designated "oversize". This limit is currently set 1 decade above large, 200 MB
- Oversize blocks can not be split
- Oversize blocks must closely match the requested size (e.g. a 200 MB request will match an existing 205 MB block, but not a 300 MB block)
- In lieu of splitting oversize blocks there is a mechanism to quickly free a single oversize block (to the system allocator) to allow an appropriate size block to be allocated. This will be activated under memory pressure and will prevent _release_cached_blocks()_ from triggering
Initial performance tests show this is similar or quicker than the original strategy. Additional tests are ongoing.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/44742
Reviewed By: ngimel
Differential Revision: D23752058
Pulled By: ezyang
fbshipit-source-id: ccb7c13e3cf8ef2707706726ac9aaac3a5e3d5c8
Summary:
*Context:* https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/53406 added a lint for trailing whitespace at the ends of lines. However, in order to pass FB-internal lints, that PR also had to normalize the trailing newlines in four of the files it touched. This PR adds an OSS lint to normalize trailing newlines.
The changes to the following files (made in 54847d0adb9be71be4979cead3d9d4c02160e4cd) are the only manually-written parts of this PR:
- `.github/workflows/lint.yml`
- `mypy-strict.ini`
- `tools/README.md`
- `tools/test/test_trailing_newlines.py`
- `tools/trailing_newlines.py`
I would have liked to make this just a shell one-liner like the other three similar lints, but nothing I could find quite fit the bill. Specifically, all the answers I tried from the following Stack Overflow questions were far too slow (at least a minute and a half to run on this entire repository):
- [How to detect file ends in newline?](https://stackoverflow.com/q/38746)
- [How do I find files that do not end with a newline/linefeed?](https://stackoverflow.com/q/4631068)
- [How to list all files in the Git index without newline at end of file](https://stackoverflow.com/q/27624800)
- [Linux - check if there is an empty line at the end of a file [duplicate]](https://stackoverflow.com/q/34943632)
- [git ensure newline at end of each file](https://stackoverflow.com/q/57770972)
To avoid giving false positives during the few days after this PR is merged, we should probably only merge it after https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/54967.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/54737
Test Plan:
Running the shell script from the "Ensure correct trailing newlines" step in the `quick-checks` job of `.github/workflows/lint.yml` should print no output and exit in a fraction of a second with a status of 0. That was not the case prior to this PR, as shown by this failing GHA workflow run on an earlier draft of this PR:
- https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/runs/2197446987?check_suite_focus=true
In contrast, this run (after correcting the trailing newlines in this PR) succeeded:
- https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/54737/checks?check_run_id=2197553241
To unit-test `tools/trailing_newlines.py` itself (this is run as part of our "Test tools" GitHub Actions workflow):
```
python tools/test/test_trailing_newlines.py
```
Reviewed By: malfet
Differential Revision: D27409736
Pulled By: samestep
fbshipit-source-id: 46f565227046b39f68349bbd5633105b2d2e9b19
