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

Improve performance on V100s #52

Open
felker opened this issue Dec 17, 2019 · 0 comments
Open

Improve performance on V100s #52

felker opened this issue Dec 17, 2019 · 0 comments

Comments

@felker
Copy link
Member

felker commented Dec 17, 2019

Mostly repeating private email and in-person communication on this topic for reference notes and posterity.

FRNN performance on V100s on the 2x IBM AC922 systems, OLCF Summit and Princeton's Traverse cluster, is about 3x slower than on the P100s on Princeton's TigerGPU cluster. See the below table, which tests the performance for d3d_0D training on both machines as a function of batch size (as suggested by @jnkh). I have run these tests with 1, 2, 8 GPUs as well, and several datasets.

Machine (GPU Model) N_node N_{GPU} Examples/sec Sec/batch Batch size
Traverse (V100) 1 4 1.35e3 0.75 1024
      2.53e3 0.80 2048
      5.20e3 0.80 4096
TigerGPU (P100) 1 4 4.30e3 0.24 1024
      7.70e3 0.26 2048
      1.38e4 0.30 4096

At first, I suspected some issue with my Conda / MPI environment on the Power 9 architecture. However, @ge-dong and I compared figures, and we confirmed that we are both independently observing this behavior. In fact, the original modules on Traverse produced about even slower performance (20%).

@ASvyatkovskiy identified the primary issue being that the TensorFlow backend fortf.keras or external Keras does not run the cuDNN autotuner unlike vanilla TensorFlow architecture definitions. See my notes about the autotuner in #51. The default implementations of our layers might be slower on V100 than on P100.

He opened issues about this when he first ran on Summit over 1.5 years ago:
tensorflow/tensorflow#18913, keras-team/keras#9825. Related: keras-team/keras#9321

And proposed the following optimizations especially for V100s:

All these things are easier to enable/add in PyTorch, which now also support distributed training natively and through Horovod.

Also, I am systematically benchmarking the LSTM Keras layer definition vs. CuDNNLSTM, which seems to be at least an order of magnitude faster.

IBM AC922 "Traverse" architecture details:

  • Processor is 16-core Power 9 running at 2.7 GHz
  • Host memory 256 GB DDR4
  • 4 X V100 with 32 GB HBM2
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant