Generalize fused weight split#57
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <skyw@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <skyw@nvidia.com>
skyw
force-pushed
the
skyw/generalize_fused_weight
branch
from
11e032a to
c178725
Compare
|
Feels like it may be heading the wrong direction, there will be more cases to support. Alternative is just take an orthoganize function and let users control how to split inside, as well as scale function and all rest of it. @FDecaYed @mkhona-nvidia let me know what do you think? |
|
/ok to test c178725 |
| split_grads_whitened = [self.orthogonalize_fn(g) for g in split_grads] | ||
| split_grad_scales = [self.scale_factor_fn(g.size(0), g.size(1)) for g in split_grads] | ||
|
|
||
| # TODO(skyw): Revisit whether there are cases that concatenating is not done along dim=0. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nn.conv1d (https://docs.pytorch.org/docs/stable/generated/torch.nn.Conv1d.html) has 3d filter and so the output has to be reshaped to 3d
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Valid point, that's also one more reason to let user supply orthogonalize function altogether instead of trying to generalize for everything.
Although conv specifically is a completely different case, all rest code assumes 2d, the scale function for example.
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <skyw@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <skyw@nvidia.com>
|
/ok to test 27aa01c |
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <skyw@nvidia.com>
|
/ok to test bd33fbb |
3 participants
Decided to remove split fused parameters logic altogether, because how parameters are fused/stacked together is implementation dependent, it is hard to generalize for everything.
Instead, now it provides interface to plugin more sophisticated orthogonalize function and let user control how to split.