-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.2k
[DeviceMesh] Added DeviceMesh.from_group()
#124787
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
Conversation
[ghstack-poisoned]
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/124787
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ✅ No FailuresAs of commit 0f814db with merge base c82fcb7 ( This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
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.
This sounds good to me! have one suggestion
@@ -434,6 +440,23 @@ def get_group( | |||
) | |||
return dim_groups | |||
|
|||
@staticmethod | |||
def from_group(group: ProcessGroup, device_type: str) -> "DeviceMesh": |
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.
can we add some documentation?
Also I am thinking how we should support multi-dim from group, i.e. HSDP shard, replicate group to pass in to construct a DeviceMesh, I guess the group
argument would likely need to be Union[ProcessGroup, List[ProcessGroup]]
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.
Also I am thinking how we should support multi-dim from group, i.e. HSDP shard, replicate group to pass in to construct a DeviceMesh, I guess the group argument would likely need to be Union[ProcessGroup, List[ProcessGroup]]
This makes sense to me. Shall we expand the API later when we need it in a separate PR?
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.
yeah we don't need to do it in this PR as it's BC compatible if later we expand the API
We need `DeviceMesh.from_group()` to allow FSDP2 to interoperate with distributed libraries that do not use `DeviceMesh` for all parallelisms. cc mrshenli pritamdamania87 zhaojuanmao satgera rohan-varma gqchen aazzolini osalpekar jiayisuse H-Huang kwen2501 penguinwu fegin XilunWu wanchaol fduwjj wz337 tianyu-l wconstab yf225 chauhang d4l3k [ghstack-poisoned]
DeviceMesh.from_group()
prototypeDeviceMesh.from_group()
This PR adds a `DeviceMesh.from_group()` static method to convert an existing process group to a device mesh. Motivation: We need `DeviceMesh.from_group()` to allow FSDP2 to interoperate with distributed libraries that do not use `DeviceMesh` for all parallelisms. cc mrshenli pritamdamania87 zhaojuanmao satgera rohan-varma gqchen aazzolini osalpekar jiayisuse H-Huang kwen2501 penguinwu fegin XilunWu wanchaol fduwjj wz337 tianyu-l wconstab yf225 chauhang d4l3k [ghstack-poisoned]
cc: @wanchaol I added some documentation and a simple unit test in |
@pytorchbot merge |
Merge startedYour change will be merged once all checks pass (ETA 0-4 Hours). Learn more about merging in the wiki. Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team |
This PR adds a `DeviceMesh.from_group()` static method to convert an existing process group to a device mesh. Motivation: We need `DeviceMesh.from_group()` to allow FSDP2 to interoperate with distributed libraries that do not use `DeviceMesh` for all parallelisms. Pull Request resolved: pytorch#124787 Approved by: https://github.com/wanchaol ghstack dependencies: pytorch#124651, pytorch#124741, pytorch#124767, pytorch#124768, pytorch#124780
This PR renames the `FSDP` class to `FSDPModule`. This is a BC breaking change. The rationale is that `FSDPModule` is more descriptive since `fully_shard` is a module-level API (applied to a `module` arg), so the `FSDP` class will always correspond to a module. Also, users commonly import `FullyShardedDataParallel` as `FSDP`, so this can help avoid some name conflict in some cases. Pull Request resolved: #124955 Approved by: https://github.com/wanchaol, https://github.com/wconstab ghstack dependencies: #124651, #124741, #124767, #124768, #124780, #124787
This PR adds a `DeviceMesh.from_group()` static method to convert an existing process group to a device mesh. Motivation: We need `DeviceMesh.from_group()` to allow FSDP2 to interoperate with distributed libraries that do not use `DeviceMesh` for all parallelisms. Pull Request resolved: #124787 Approved by: https://github.com/wanchaol ghstack dependencies: #124651, #124741, #124767, #124768, #124780
This PR renames the `FSDP` class to `FSDPModule`. This is a BC breaking change. The rationale is that `FSDPModule` is more descriptive since `fully_shard` is a module-level API (applied to a `module` arg), so the `FSDP` class will always correspond to a module. Also, users commonly import `FullyShardedDataParallel` as `FSDP`, so this can help avoid some name conflict in some cases. Pull Request resolved: #124955 Approved by: https://github.com/wanchaol, https://github.com/wconstab ghstack dependencies: #124651, #124741, #124767, #124768, #124780, #124787
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
DeviceMesh.from_group()
#124787.to(cpu)
#124768This PR adds a
DeviceMesh.from_group()
static method to convert an existing process group to a device mesh.Motivation: We need
DeviceMesh.from_group()
to allow FSDP2 to interoperate with distributed libraries that do not useDeviceMesh
for all parallelisms.cc @mrshenli @pritamdamania87 @zhaojuanmao @satgera @rohan-varma @gqchen @aazzolini @osalpekar @jiayisuse @H-Huang @kwen2501 @penguinwu @fegin @XilunWu @wanchaol @fduwjj @wz337 @tianyu-l @wconstab @yf225 @chauhang @d4l3k