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

Test optimizer to device #20062

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

corwinjoy
Copy link
Contributor

@corwinjoy corwinjoy commented Jul 9, 2024

What does this PR do?

Pursuant to #19955
add an extended test for _optimizer_to_device that explicitly tests moving the optimizer across devices.

Fixes #19955

Before submitting
  • Was this discussed/agreed via a GitHub issue? (not for typos and docs)
  • Did you read the contributor guideline, Pull Request section?
  • Did you make sure your PR does only one thing, instead of bundling different changes together?
  • Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes? (if necessary)
  • Did you write any new necessary tests? (not for typos and docs)
  • Did you verify new and existing tests pass locally with your changes?
  • Did you list all the breaking changes introduced by this pull request?
  • Did you update the CHANGELOG? (not for typos, docs, test updates, or minor internal changes/refactors)

PR review

Anyone in the community is welcome to review the PR.
Before you start reviewing, make sure you have read the review guidelines. In short, see the following bullet-list:

Reviewer checklist
  • Is this pull request ready for review? (if not, please submit in draft mode)
  • Check that all items from Before submitting are resolved
  • Make sure the title is self-explanatory and the description concisely explains the PR
  • Add labels and milestones (and optionally projects) to the PR so it can be classified

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pytorch-lightning--20062.org.readthedocs.build/en/20062/

@github-actions github-actions bot added the pl Generic label for PyTorch Lightning package label Jul 16, 2024

# Try from_dict
# These all pretend that we have an appropriate prototype, I don't think we can actually do this since
# all we may have is a CPU pickle
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The test we have for pytorch load_state_dict being able to read a CPU checkpoint into an appropriate GPU optimizer is here: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/blob/main/test/test_optim.py#L1545-L1574

The code above is also how I expect checkpointing to happen, without the need of an explicit move to device.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have updated this test to be more explicit about what is going on, please take a look and see if it makes sense since the test you linked doesn't look at thorough as far as I can tell.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yea, the case we test is moving from CPU to GPU, and I see you test more combinations.

# Use from_dict with cpu prototype, fused = True
opt_gpu_dict = optimizer_on_device[gpu_device + "_fused_True"].state_dict()
cpu_prototype = copy.deepcopy(optimizer_on_device["cpu"])
cpu_prototype.load_state_dict(opt_gpu_dict) # This should give an error / refuse to allow fused = True
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

FYI, for older versions of torch this should indeed be not allowed/would break. But since torch 2.4, there is a fused CPU Adam(W)/SGD/Adagrad, so fused=True on CPU for these optimizers would be valid.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
fabric lightning.fabric.Fabric pl Generic label for PyTorch Lightning package
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Adam optimizer is slower after loading model from checkpoint
2 participants