Add strategy argument to Trainer
#8597
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8597 +/- ##
=======================================
- Coverage 93% 89% -4%
=======================================
Files 178 178
Lines 15668 15695 +27
=======================================
- Hits 14526 13943 -583
- Misses 1142 1752 +610 |
|
since training type plugins are themselves in beta, i have a naming question: training type isn't only for training, but also other stages like evaluation and prediction. people could be confused why the plugin name references training if it also applies during these other situations. with that in mind, is there another name we should formalize his under? i fully acknowledge renaming existing training type plugins would be super annoying, but it'll be much harder to change once this is on the trainer constructor |
|
@ananthsub I fully agree. This comes back from when we introduced it. Back then there was mainly training and validation (which was considered to be only a part of training). How would you call it though? Some kind of |
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
kaushikb11
requested review from
awaelchli,
Borda,
carmocca,
justusschock,
SeanNaren,
tchaton and
williamFalcon
as code owners
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
kaushikb11
changed the title
accelerator_strategy argument to Trainerstrategy argument to Trainer
Co-authored-by: Rohit Gupta <[email protected]>
…orch-lightning into add/training_type
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
| raise MisconfigurationException( | ||
| f"You have passed `Trainer(strategy={self.strategy})` but have" | ||
| f" also passed `Trainer(distributed_backend={distributed_backend})`." | ||
| f"HINT: Use just `Trainer(strategy={self.strategy})` instead." |
| rank_zero_deprecation( | ||
| f"Passing {accelerator} `strategy` to the `accelerator` flag in Trainer has been deprecated" | ||
| f" in v1.5 and will be removed in v1.7. Use `Trainer(strategy={accelerator})` instead." | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought we weren't going to deprecate the previous accelerator and instead just print a warning
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think accelerator flag is still there.. it's just that passing one of the strategies to it is deprecated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What I understood from our offline discussion was that support gpus=N and accelerator="ddp" would not be deprecated and removed as its widely used but a warning would be printed suggesting adopting the new flags
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Flags gpus, tpu_cores, etc will still be supported but passing training strategies to accelerator will be deprecated. This decision will also help with the internal cleanup of AcceleratorConnector.
Co-authored-by: Rohit Gupta <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
What does this PR do?
Supports #6090
Related Issue #9053
strategyargument supports passing training type aliases (ddp,ddp_spawn),TrainingTypeRegistryplugins ("ddp_spawn_find_unused_parameters_false") and custom plugin objects (DDPPlugin())At the moment, there’s a single flag accelerator tied for Accelerators as well as Training Type plugins. We wish to have them decoupled!
Alternate flags to set Training Types
acceleratorOptional[Union[str, Accelerator]]= Nonedistributed_backendOptional[str]= NoneacceleratorinsteadpluginsOptional[Union[List[Union[Plugin, ClusterEnvironment, str]], Plugin, ClusterEnvironment, str]]= NoneWhat's the difference between passing training type to accelerator, distributed_backend, or plugins?
acceleratoranddistributed_backendonly supportDistributedType, whereaspluginssupport Custom Training Types.Exceptions:
Trainer(distributed_backend="ddp_cpu", strategy="ddp_spawn")Trainer(accelerator="ddp", strategy="ddp_spawn")Trainer(plugins="ddp_find_unused_parameters_false", strategy="ddp_spawn")Deprecations: (Deprecated in v1.5 & will be removed in v1.6)
acceleratorflagpluginsflagDoes your PR introduce any breaking changes? If yes, please list them.
Before submitting
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:
Did you have fun?
Make sure you had fun coding 🙃