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

efficient untrue batching of random_bit_generator #19085

Closed
froystig opened this issue Dec 21, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #20094
Closed

efficient untrue batching of random_bit_generator #19085

froystig opened this issue Dec 21, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #20094
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@froystig
Copy link
Member

The batching rule for the random_bit_generator primitive, over a batch of keys, emits a loop (via lax.map):
https://github.com/google/jax/blob/42ae8432185bf03f61ddd2e7bc279d3abb5247fd/jax/_src/lax/control_flow/loops.py#L2012-L2024

This is a workaround to the corresponding RandomBitGenerator HLO not being batchable. But looping violates the operational expectations of vmap, namely that everything is vectorized. And downstream, the surprise performance hit when switching RNG implementations isn't great.

We could consider a few options:

  1. Emit an unrolled loop. Drawbacks: grows the program size with the batch size.
  2. Generate a batch of random numbers from a single key in the batch, dropping the remaining keys in the batch. Drawbacks: this violates vmap semantics considering the random values generated, although the output is "statistically" the same in a sense.

Let's try number 2.

The RBG operation is already non-portable across platforms and XLA flags. In some cases the random generation is affected by sharding. So arguably, callers opting into RBG RNGs already expect unusual semantics. By contrast, it's uncommon that anyone expects the performance hit.

cc @mattjj, @dlwh

@froystig froystig added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 21, 2023
@froystig froystig self-assigned this Dec 21, 2023
@froystig
Copy link
Member Author

This ought to address #16792

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant