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

Fix SDPA dispatch & make SDPA CI compatible with torch<2.1.1 #27940

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 11, 2023

Conversation

fxmarty
Copy link
Contributor

@fxmarty fxmarty commented Dec 11, 2023

As per title.

On torch==2.0.1, these do pass

RUN_SLOW=1 pytest tests/models/bart -s -vvvvv -k "torchscript"
RUN_SLOW=1 pytest tests/models/llama -s -vvvvv -k "torchscript"
RUN_SLOW=1 pytest tests/models/whisper -s -vvvvv -k "torchscript"
RUN_SLOW=1 CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 pytest tests/models/bert -s -vvvvv
RUN_SLOW=1 CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 pytest tests/models/llama -s -vvvvv

On torch==2.1.1, these do pass (#26572 (comment))

RUN_SLOW=1 CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 pytest tests/ -s -vvvvv -k "flash or sdpa"
RUN_SLOW=1 CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 pytest tests/whisper -s -vvvvv -k "llama"
RUN_SLOW=1 CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 pytest tests/models/llama -s -vvvvv
RUN_SLOW=1 CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 pytest tests/models/bart -s -vvvvv
RUN_SLOW=1 CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 pytest tests/models/bert -s -vvvvv

There was a bug where even though we manually request attn_implementation="eager", we would still go into the SDPA controlflow and hard check that the requirements are fine. Which is not what we want.

@fxmarty fxmarty requested a review from LysandreJik December 11, 2023 09:28
Copy link
Member

@LysandreJik LysandreJik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, looks good, would like @ArthurZucker to take a quick look before merging. Will cherry-pick this for the release.

@@ -1244,6 +1244,7 @@ def _autoset_attn_implementation(
# Here we use config._attn_implementation_internal to check whether the attention implementation was explicitely set by the user.
# The property `PretrainedConfig._attn_implementation` is never `None`, for backward compatibility (always fall back on "eager").
# The `hasattr` here is used as some Transformers tests for some reason do not call PretrainedConfig __init__ (e.g. test_no_super_init_config_and_model)
requested_attn_implementation = None
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should this be "default" instead?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@fxmarty fxmarty Dec 11, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, the idea here is to check whether the user passed attn_implementation="eager", attn_implementation="sdpa" or attn_implementation="sdpa" explicitly when loading the model from from_pretrained or from_config.

In case attn_implementation is explicitly set, we hard error if a dependency is missing (torch>=2.1.1, model does not support SDPA), otherwise we smoothly fall back on eager.

@fxmarty fxmarty requested a review from ArthurZucker December 11, 2023 09:33
Copy link
Collaborator

@ArthurZucker ArthurZucker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks

config = cls._check_and_enable_sdpa(config, hard_check_only=hard_check_only)
elif not hard_check_only:
config = cls._check_and_enable_sdpa(
config, hard_check_only=False if requested_attn_implementation is None else True
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks better thanks

@fxmarty fxmarty merged commit 9f18cc6 into huggingface:main Dec 11, 2023
21 checks passed
iantbutler01 pushed a commit to BismuthCloud/transformers that referenced this pull request Dec 16, 2023
staghado pushed a commit to staghado/transformers that referenced this pull request Jan 15, 2024
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants