-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 111
Fix error with rewrite_reshapes #4482
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
Open
pfultz2
wants to merge
4
commits into
develop
Choose a base branch
from
rewrite-squeeze-unsqueeze-fuse-reduce
base: develop
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+152
−13
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For the Llama3.2 issue, it looks like this line just prevents the rewrite. The gather before fused_reduce is
{1, 1, 2048}, {2048, 2048, 1}while the output of the fused_reduce + reshapes is{1, 1, 64, 1, 32}, {1, 1, 0, 1, 0}. To move the reshape instructions from after the fused_reduce to before we would have to unsqueeze and broadcast the gather to something like{1 , 1, 64, 2048, 32}, {0, 0, 0, 1, 0}.The shape_transform_descriptor after rebase with the bugged code is
{[batch_size: 0], [1: 1], [64,:], [2048:2], [32:]}. Mentioned that this was incorrect, but it does look right? Since the64and32dimensions are broadcasted dimensions.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes it will. Once we have the logger, I would like to log a message for these cases because it means we are missing some perf issues.
What are the reshapes ops being used? You can print the
opsvector. I think we mght need that to reproduce this issue.No its not right because we arent broadcasting on the input to pointwise.
We start with
{1, 1, 2048}, after reduce its{1, 1, 1}, then its reshaped(or usesunsqueeze) to{1, 1, 1, 1, 1}which is then broadcasted to{1, 1, 64, 1, 32}.We start with
{1, 1, 1}arriving to {1, 1, 64, 1, 32}with the shape transform descriptor and then we rebase it with the{1, 1, 2048}so it starts with that instead of{1, 1, 1}` because we want to move the transformations before the reduce so that we can fuse them together.So we want
{1, 1, 2048}reshaped to{1, 1, 64, 1, 32}and the reduction to happen along the last 3 axes, but the descriptor is showing a reshape to{1, 1, 1, 2048, 1}and then broadcasted to{1, 1, 64, 2048, 32}which is wrong.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
{1, 1, 64, 1, 32}would not work as the instruction before the reduce though? The reduction has to occur on the 2048, so with{1, 1, 64, 1, 32}the reduction shape output would be{1, 1, 1, 1, 1}which would have to be broadcasted again. I don't get what benefit there would be.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Based on the above what we want is this?:
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yea
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Currently there is a
reduce -> unsqueeze -> broadcast -> pointwise, which we dont fuse because of theunsqueeze. After the rewrite we will havereshape -> reduce -> broadcast -> pointwisewhich we can then fuse thereduce -> broadcast -> pointwise.