Skip to content

Single-process multi-node CPU training #9603

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

Merged
merged 23 commits into from
Oct 14, 2021
Merged

Single-process multi-node CPU training #9603

merged 23 commits into from
Oct 14, 2021

Conversation

borchero
Copy link
Contributor

@borchero borchero commented Sep 20, 2021

What does this PR do?

Whenever a model is small, it is not necessarily useful to use a GPU. However, one might still benefit from distributing computations for model training across nodes -- especially when you consider that containers are also "nodes".

This PR sets DistributedType.DDP instead of DistributedType.DDP_SPAWN whenever DistributedType.DDP_CPU is set and only a single process or a single process per node is used.

Does your PR introduce any breaking changes? If yes, please list them.

  • Minor breaking change: whenever one requests a num_nodes > 1 and sets num_processes = None on the Trainer, num_processes now defaults to 1 and DistributedType.DDP is used. Before, num_processes was set to os.cpu_count() and DistributedType.DDP_SPAWN was used. However, it is unlikely that people rely on that behavior, especially since num_processes defaults to 1.

One could decide to keep the old behavior, however, I would argue that it is far more likely to only want a single process when distributing across nodes (think containers).

Fixes #9877

Before submitting

  • Was this discussed/approved 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 internal minor changes/refactorings)

PR review

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

  • 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

@stale stale bot added the won't fix This will not be worked on label Oct 5, 2021
@Lightning-AI Lightning-AI deleted a comment from stale bot Oct 5, 2021
@stale stale bot removed the won't fix This will not be worked on label Oct 5, 2021
@awaelchli awaelchli added distributed Generic distributed-related topic feature Is an improvement or enhancement labels Oct 9, 2021
@awaelchli awaelchli added this to the v1.5 milestone Oct 10, 2021
@awaelchli
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the PR. LGTM, just a few changes requested.

@borchero
Copy link
Contributor Author

Implemented the changes, thanks for the pointers @awaelchli :)

@awaelchli
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @borchero <3

@mergify mergify bot removed the has conflicts label Oct 11, 2021
@borchero
Copy link
Contributor Author

Don't think the failing test is caused by my changes.

@mergify mergify bot added the ready PRs ready to be merged label Oct 14, 2021
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 14, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #9603 (146123b) into master (6feda08) will decrease coverage by 4%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #9603    +/-   ##
=======================================
- Coverage      93%     89%    -4%     
=======================================
  Files         179     179            
  Lines       15805   15807     +2     
=======================================
- Hits        14648   14029   -619     
- Misses       1157    1778   +621     

Copy link
Contributor

@rohitgr7 rohitgr7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nice work!

@carmocca carmocca merged commit afbf703 into Lightning-AI:master Oct 14, 2021
rohitgr7 pushed a commit to Tshimanga/pytorch-lightning that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2021
Co-authored-by: Adrian Wälchli <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: thomas chaton <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
distributed Generic distributed-related topic feature Is an improvement or enhancement ready PRs ready to be merged
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Single-process multi-node CPU training
6 participants