Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TensorOps kernels refactoring #3346

Open
wants to merge 26 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

novakovicdj
Copy link
Contributor

This is draft PR for refactoring tensor ops kernels to solver structure, so far only Op1dTensorGeneric kernel is switched

src/include/miopen/tensor/solvers.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensor/Op1dTensorGeneric.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/tensor/problem_description.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 41 to 43
const void* alpha0_,
const void* alpha1_,
const void* beta_,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Check this conversation
https://github.com/ROCm/MIOpen/pull/3346/files#r1824480257

Probably alpha0/1 must not be a part of the PD, ideally beta as well, but right now it has to be there..

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would a bool marking if alpha0/... has a "default" value meaning no additional work required suffice?

src/include/miopen/tensor/problem_description.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensor/Op1dTensorGeneric.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensor/Op1dTensorGeneric.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensor/Op1dTensorGeneric.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensor/Op2dTensorLite.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 88 to 90
size_t Aoffset;
size_t Boffset;
size_t Coffset;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need to handle this internally? IIRC it should be possible to externally pass any subtensor via changing pointer+descriptor. If so this is a duplicated functionality

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that the main point is the pointer is void * and actual type is an miopen_Type_t enum. That's why you can't just add them without special helpers.

src/include/miopen/tensor/invoke_params.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/include/miopen/tensor/problem_description.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 41 to 43
const void* alpha0_,
const void* alpha1_,
const void* beta_,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would a bool marking if alpha0/... has a "default" value meaning no additional work required suffice?

src/include/miopen/tensor/problem_description.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensor/Op1dTensorGeneric.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensor/Op1dTensorGeneric.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensor/Op1dTensorGeneric.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensor/Op1dTensorGeneric.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/include/miopen/tensor_ops.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensorOp/tensor_op_helpers.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensorOp/tensor_op_helpers.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensorOp/tensor_op_helpers.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensorOp/tensor_op_helpers.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensorOp/tensor_op_helpers.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensorOp/Op2dTensorLite.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensorOp/Op2dTensorSquash.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensorOp/Op4dTensorLite.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensorOp/Op4dTensorLite.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensorOp/OpTensorFwdBias.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@novakovicdj novakovicdj marked this pull request as ready for review November 7, 2024 15:19
@shurale-nkn
Copy link
Contributor

Please provide a comparison of the average only CPU time (new solver vs old api) measurements for 100 calls with same problem and the costs associated with the first call of the unique problem configuration.

@novakovicdj
Copy link
Contributor Author

Please provide a comparison of the average only CPU time (new solver vs old api) measurements for 100 calls with same problem and the costs associated with the first call of the unique problem configuration.

Here is a comparison of average host time between old and new structure

Kernel New structure [ms] Old structure [ms] diff [ms]
Op1dTensorGeneric first run 279.3786 291.3806 -12.002
other 100 runs 0.2908 0.2549 0.0359
Op2dTensorGeneric first run 281.8186 283.4622 -1.6436
other 100 runs 0.356 0.2432 0.1128
Op2dTensorLite first run 634.2228 662.2278 -28.005
other 100 runs 0.335 0.2308 0.1042
Op2dTensorSquash first run 668.978 699.9932 -31.0152
other 100 runs 0.3481 0.2548 0.0933
Op3dTensorGeneric first run 642.1512 656.3394 -14.1882
other 100 runs 0.2659 0.2485 0.0174
OpTensorFwdBias first run 636.6204 654.8222 -18.2018
other 100 runs 0.3351 0.2321 0.103
OpTensorFwdBiasGeneric first run 636.4756 662.4915 -26.0159
other 100 runs 0.3498 0.2434 0.1064
OpTensorLeadingOnes first run 644.8348 666.8713 -22.0365
other 100 runs 0.3466 0.2755 0.0711
OpTensorLeadingOnesGeneric first run 648.6535 669.6379 -20.9844
other 100 runs 0.3552 0.2569 0.0983
Op4dTensorLite first run 641.4747 664.4976 -23.0229
other 100 runs 0.33 0.2206 0.1094
Op4dTensorGeneric first run 650.7638 670.8961 -20.1323
other 100 runs 0.3563 0.2456 0.1107
Op5dTensorGeneric first run 655.6774 685.431 -29.7536
other 100 runs 0.3745 0.2437 0.1308

New structure is faster on average for 20ms for first runs and it is slower for 0.1ms for other 100 calls or 0.001ms per call

@shurale-nkn
Copy link
Contributor

Please provide a comparison of the average only CPU time (new solver vs old api) measurements for 100 calls with same problem and the costs associated with the first call of the unique problem configuration.

Here is a comparison of average host time between old and new structure

Kernel New structure [ms] Old structure [ms] diff [ms]
Op1dTensorGeneric first run 279.3786 291.3806 -12.002
other 100 runs 0.2908 0.2549 0.0359
Op2dTensorGeneric first run 281.8186 283.4622 -1.6436
other 100 runs 0.356 0.2432 0.1128
Op2dTensorLite first run 634.2228 662.2278 -28.005
other 100 runs 0.335 0.2308 0.1042
Op2dTensorSquash first run 668.978 699.9932 -31.0152
other 100 runs 0.3481 0.2548 0.0933
Op3dTensorGeneric first run 642.1512 656.3394 -14.1882
other 100 runs 0.2659 0.2485 0.0174
OpTensorFwdBias first run 636.6204 654.8222 -18.2018
other 100 runs 0.3351 0.2321 0.103
OpTensorFwdBiasGeneric first run 636.4756 662.4915 -26.0159
other 100 runs 0.3498 0.2434 0.1064
OpTensorLeadingOnes first run 644.8348 666.8713 -22.0365
other 100 runs 0.3466 0.2755 0.0711
OpTensorLeadingOnesGeneric first run 648.6535 669.6379 -20.9844
other 100 runs 0.3552 0.2569 0.0983
Op4dTensorLite first run 641.4747 664.4976 -23.0229
other 100 runs 0.33 0.2206 0.1094
Op4dTensorGeneric first run 650.7638 670.8961 -20.1323
other 100 runs 0.3563 0.2456 0.1107
Op5dTensorGeneric first run 655.6774 685.431 -29.7536
other 100 runs 0.3745 0.2437 0.1308
New structure is faster on average for 20ms for first runs and it is slower for 0.1ms for other 100 calls or 0.001ms per call

The results are very strange; we need to obtain the experiment protocol. How was the program executed, and what was used for measurement?
so far, according to the table, each subsequent launch is on average 30% slower

@novakovicdj
Copy link
Contributor Author

I did some profiling to compare old and new structure and saw that creation of network_config is slower than before, this is more visible for bigger dimension tensors and it is consequence of the new format of network_config. Network_config creation for 5d tensors is around 4 times slower than in the old structure and around 3 times slower compared to 1d tensor network_config in the new structure. Because of all of that I switched to using string and got speed up of around 2.2 times compared to using stream.

After that I run 500 iterations of old and new structure for all tensor kernels and got the result that the new version is faster for 0.0005ms on average, which is around 20% faster than old structure.

@BrianHarrisonAMD
Copy link
Collaborator

I am not seeing a lot of testing coverage for OpTensor before the changes.
The only tests I can see that specifically run OpTensor seem to be these, and it looks like they aren't covering all ops.

Would it be possible to add new tests to the gtest suite to ensure correctness for the new solvers being added?

solver/tensorOp/Op2dTensorLite.cpp
solver/tensorOp/Op2dTensorSquash.cpp
solver/tensorOp/Op3dTensorGeneric.cpp
solver/tensorOp/OpTensorFwdBias.cpp
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you alphabetize these?

src/include/miopen/rnn/solvers.hpp Show resolved Hide resolved
src/solver/tensorOp/Op2dTensorGeneric.cpp Show resolved Hide resolved
if(is4dLite)
{
// for naive tensor ops
const std::string data_type = GetDataType(bTensorDesc.GetType());
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Effectively unused

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm curious why either compilers or clang-tidy does not complain about it. Usually, they do..


size_t TENS_LEN = cTensorDesc.GetElementSize();
size_t RD_BLCK = (TENS_LEN % 4 == 0) ? 4 : (TENS_LEN % 2 == 0) ? 2 : 1;
const std::string READ_TYPE =
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unused--is something missing?

@novakovicdj
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am not seeing a lot of testing coverage for OpTensor before the changes. The only tests I can see that specifically run OpTensor seem to be these, and it looks like they aren't covering all ops.

Would it be possible to add new tests to the gtest suite to ensure correctness for the new solvers being added?

Current test for tensorOp is covering all solvers except for Op2dTensorSquash but I did some changes and tested it locally and it worked fine. There is a plan to switch this test to gtest and then those improvements of testing tensorOps will be implemented.

As a part of this PR I will add some unit tests for Problem Descriptor, so please do not merge this yet

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants