You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@arrow.apache.org by Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com> on 2019/02/04 04:59:54 UTC
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Hey all,
We're having the TensorFlow SIG-Build meeting on 5th Feb 3pm PST
(https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190205T15&p1=224).
Agenda is linked from:
https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/forum/#!topic/build/akyPcGoBIy4
I'd like to invite everyone from this thread to join the call if at
all possible. The agenda for this meeting will spend most of the time
focusing on the manylinux issue and hopefully we can get together to
flesh out a decent plan on how to tackle this.
Thanks,
Jason
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 23:34, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG Build
<bu...@tensorflow.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:21 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 30/01/2019 à 16:09, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:51 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org
>> > <ma...@python.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 30/01/2019 à 15:35, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>> > >
>> > > Am I reading you wrong, or are you actually proposing to
>> > package another
>> > > libstdc++ version as a Python wheel?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > That would be the idea.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > If so, are you going to claim that the given wheel is
>> > > manylinux-compatible?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > That is my question :) Why wouldn't it be? (I'd link it against
>> > > manylinux libc and other C-only system libs)
>> >
>> > The problem is when you are loading two modules that link against
>> > different libstdc++ versions in the same process. Incidentally, it's
>> > the problem which prompted this discussion.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sure, I'm aware :) I think as long as the requirement that all libraries
>> > that want to exchange runtime-ABI-compatible versions are compiled with
>> > the same toolchain, we can provide a way to mangle the symbols
>> > differently.
>>
>> Ah, I see... Indeed, mangling the symbols may work for this.
>>
>> That said, if you're looking to create a de facto standard, why can't it
>> be proposed as a manylinux iteration?
>
>
> I'd have thought because it doesn't change the system requirements, while manylinux seems to be all about system requirements.
> The idea is that that toolchain would still work on any manylinux compatible machine.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antoine.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIG Build" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to build+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com>.
Hey all,
Just a quick reminder that we're gonna have the follow-up call tomorrow
(Tuesday) 5pm UTC, 9am PST, noon EST, 1am Wednesday Singapore. (About 23hrs
from this email) so the folks in europe can make the call too.
It'll be a hangouts call same as before and we'll put the link and dial-in
number in the google doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uYZK2jQtDUPpo3AHe18ZCH1jS9be9s8zR3axLR1SOG0/edit#heading=h.7sjot6x53yvw
Thanks,
Jason
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 02:45, Philipp Moritz <pc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would building our manylinux2010 wheels against
> https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/pull/252 solve the C++11 problems? In
> that case we should just do that. Otherwise let's propose a minimally
> modified manylinux2011 that fixes C++11 support so we can move on and don't
> have to wait 9 more months till manylinux2014 or whatever will support
> c++14.
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 9:14 AM Philipp Moritz <pc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The problems arose if some functionality of C++11 <future> were used. It
>> led to certain symbols being statically linked into the shared library
>> which clashed with other shared libraries that had the same symbols in the
>> same address space, linked against a different version of libstdc++
>> (specifically, tensorflow's). There is some discussion about this in
>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3177.
>>
>> This might happen in the future again if pre g++ 5 stdlib is mixed with
>> post g++ 5. But with manylinux20xx we will be in a better situation if the
>> major packages (TensorFlow, PyTorch, Ray, Arrow) standardize on g++ >= 5.
>> Older manylinux1 packages from pip might still clash but we can flag them
>> as not manylinux20xx compatible and work towards them being fixed.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:37 AM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Le 06/02/2019 à 14:27, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>>> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:38 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org
>>> > <ma...@python.org>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Le 06/02/2019 à 01:06, Philipp Moritz a écrit :
>>> > > Thanks for the meeting! One question concerning a point that is
>>> still
>>> > > not super clear to me:
>>> > >
>>> > > Say we define a new manylinux standard based on gcc >=5 (with
>>> stable
>>> > > c++11 support). There will still be a lot of wheels form the
>>> > manylinux1
>>> > > days that are built against gcc 4.8 that might use the c++11
>>> features
>>> > > before they became stable. How do we prevent bugs from that? Is
>>> > the plan
>>> > > to convince everybody who uses these c++11 features to use the
>>> new
>>> > > manylinux standard?
>>> >
>>> > Yes, that's a bit of a problem.
>>> >
>>> > This discussion arised from the incompatibility between Tensorflow
>>> > wheels (compiled with a later toolchain) and other Python wheels
>>> > (compiled with a manylinux1-compatible toolchain).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Do you know where these communicate with std types? (due to ABI tagging
>>> > loading them into the same process should work, right?)
>>>
>>> They don't. I don't remember the specifics, Philipp Moritz might know
>>> more about this.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antoine.
>>>
>>
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Philipp Moritz <pc...@gmail.com>.
Would building our manylinux2010 wheels against
https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/pull/252 solve the C++11 problems? In
that case we should just do that. Otherwise let's propose a minimally
modified manylinux2011 that fixes C++11 support so we can move on and don't
have to wait 9 more months till manylinux2014 or whatever will support
c++14.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 9:14 AM Philipp Moritz <pc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problems arose if some functionality of C++11 <future> were used. It
> led to certain symbols being statically linked into the shared library
> which clashed with other shared libraries that had the same symbols in the
> same address space, linked against a different version of libstdc++
> (specifically, tensorflow's). There is some discussion about this in
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3177.
>
> This might happen in the future again if pre g++ 5 stdlib is mixed with
> post g++ 5. But with manylinux20xx we will be in a better situation if the
> major packages (TensorFlow, PyTorch, Ray, Arrow) standardize on g++ >= 5.
> Older manylinux1 packages from pip might still clash but we can flag them
> as not manylinux20xx compatible and work towards them being fixed.
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:37 AM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 06/02/2019 à 14:27, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:38 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org
>> > <ma...@python.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 06/02/2019 à 01:06, Philipp Moritz a écrit :
>> > > Thanks for the meeting! One question concerning a point that is
>> still
>> > > not super clear to me:
>> > >
>> > > Say we define a new manylinux standard based on gcc >=5 (with
>> stable
>> > > c++11 support). There will still be a lot of wheels form the
>> > manylinux1
>> > > days that are built against gcc 4.8 that might use the c++11
>> features
>> > > before they became stable. How do we prevent bugs from that? Is
>> > the plan
>> > > to convince everybody who uses these c++11 features to use the new
>> > > manylinux standard?
>> >
>> > Yes, that's a bit of a problem.
>> >
>> > This discussion arised from the incompatibility between Tensorflow
>> > wheels (compiled with a later toolchain) and other Python wheels
>> > (compiled with a manylinux1-compatible toolchain).
>> >
>> >
>> > Do you know where these communicate with std types? (due to ABI tagging
>> > loading them into the same process should work, right?)
>>
>> They don't. I don't remember the specifics, Philipp Moritz might know
>> more about this.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antoine.
>>
>
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Philipp Moritz <pc...@gmail.com>.
The problems arose if some functionality of C++11 <future> were used. It
led to certain symbols being statically linked into the shared library
which clashed with other shared libraries that had the same symbols in the
same address space, linked against a different version of libstdc++
(specifically, tensorflow's). There is some discussion about this in
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3177.
This might happen in the future again if pre g++ 5 stdlib is mixed with
post g++ 5. But with manylinux20xx we will be in a better situation if the
major packages (TensorFlow, PyTorch, Ray, Arrow) standardize on g++ >= 5.
Older manylinux1 packages from pip might still clash but we can flag them
as not manylinux20xx compatible and work towards them being fixed.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:37 AM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
> Le 06/02/2019 à 14:27, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:38 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org
> > <ma...@python.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 06/02/2019 à 01:06, Philipp Moritz a écrit :
> > > Thanks for the meeting! One question concerning a point that is
> still
> > > not super clear to me:
> > >
> > > Say we define a new manylinux standard based on gcc >=5 (with
> stable
> > > c++11 support). There will still be a lot of wheels form the
> > manylinux1
> > > days that are built against gcc 4.8 that might use the c++11
> features
> > > before they became stable. How do we prevent bugs from that? Is
> > the plan
> > > to convince everybody who uses these c++11 features to use the new
> > > manylinux standard?
> >
> > Yes, that's a bit of a problem.
> >
> > This discussion arised from the incompatibility between Tensorflow
> > wheels (compiled with a later toolchain) and other Python wheels
> > (compiled with a manylinux1-compatible toolchain).
> >
> >
> > Do you know where these communicate with std types? (due to ABI tagging
> > loading them into the same process should work, right?)
>
> They don't. I don't remember the specifics, Philipp Moritz might know
> more about this.
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
Le 06/02/2019 à 14:27, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:38 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org
> <ma...@python.org>> wrote:
>
>
> Le 06/02/2019 à 01:06, Philipp Moritz a écrit :
> > Thanks for the meeting! One question concerning a point that is still
> > not super clear to me:
> >
> > Say we define a new manylinux standard based on gcc >=5 (with stable
> > c++11 support). There will still be a lot of wheels form the
> manylinux1
> > days that are built against gcc 4.8 that might use the c++11 features
> > before they became stable. How do we prevent bugs from that? Is
> the plan
> > to convince everybody who uses these c++11 features to use the new
> > manylinux standard?
>
> Yes, that's a bit of a problem.
>
> This discussion arised from the incompatibility between Tensorflow
> wheels (compiled with a later toolchain) and other Python wheels
> (compiled with a manylinux1-compatible toolchain).
>
>
> Do you know where these communicate with std types? (due to ABI tagging
> loading them into the same process should work, right?)
They don't. I don't remember the specifics, Philipp Moritz might know
more about this.
Regards
Antoine.
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
Le 06/02/2019 à 01:06, Philipp Moritz a écrit :
> Thanks for the meeting! One question concerning a point that is still
> not super clear to me:
>
> Say we define a new manylinux standard based on gcc >=5 (with stable
> c++11 support). There will still be a lot of wheels form the manylinux1
> days that are built against gcc 4.8 that might use the c++11 features
> before they became stable. How do we prevent bugs from that? Is the plan
> to convince everybody who uses these c++11 features to use the new
> manylinux standard?
Yes, that's a bit of a problem.
This discussion arised from the incompatibility between Tensorflow
wheels (compiled with a later toolchain) and other Python wheels
(compiled with a manylinux1-compatible toolchain).
Intuitively, by using the new C++ ABI we may prevent such issues when
installing manylinux1 wheels and manylinux20XX wheels side-by-side. But
it's difficult to say for sure.
Regards
Antoine.
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 8:14 AM Jonathan Helmus <jhelmus@anaconda.com
> <ma...@anaconda.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/5/19 9:29 AM, 'Manuel Klimek' via TensorFlow Developers wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:28 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org
>> <ma...@python.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 05/02/2019 à 16:22, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:01 PM Uwe L. Korn <xhochy@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>
>> > <mailto:xhochy@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Also to reiterate a point raised earlier: C++11 with
>> manylinux1
>> > works smoothly. With gcc 4.8.5, everything we need in Arrow
>> > supported. C++14 and more are out of scope and can only
>> be used
>> > starting with manylinux{2010/2014}.
>> >
>> > From the requirements side (Martin will correct me if I'm
>> getting these
>> > wrong):
>> > - it seems like from the TF point of view, our users are on
>> pip, so we
>> > need to deliver there
>> > - LLVM is going to require C++14 ~in March as far as I can tell
>> > - from trying to find info about manylinux2010 / 14, it
>> seems like these
>> > have stalled? (but I'm happy to be proven wrong here :)
>>
>> manylinux2010 hasn't stalled, it's been progressing slowly.
>> Apparently
>> pip 19.0 is out which supports downloading and installing
>> manylinux2010
>> packages. See status page here:
>> https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/issues/179#issuecomment-457002180
>>
>>
>> Cool! The problem is that it doesn't solve the C++14 issue, right?
>
> Devtoolset-7 can be installed on RHEL6/CentOS 6 which is the
> reference distribution of manylinux2010. Devtoolset-7 includes GCC
> 7.3.1 which has full support for C++14. On RHEL6/CentOS 6 the
> devtoolset compilers target the older GCC C++ ABI
> (-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0) and will not emit the newer ABI. There
> is a open pull request to the manylinux repository to create a
> docker image containing this toolset which may be of interest:
>
> https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/pull/252
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Jonathan Helmus
>
>>
>> manylinux2014 is an entirely different question. It needs
>> interested
>> parties to gather and devise a spec and then get it accepted
>> as a new PEP.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antoine.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "TensorFlow Developers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to developers+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org
>> <ma...@tensorflow.org>.
>> Visit this group at
>> https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/developers/.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/d/msgid/developers/CAOsfVvnY5jSsB6aF8qw-d1TFF3XX1OKgCpXC8%3DQ9dyfYbGed_w%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/d/msgid/developers/CAOsfVvnY5jSsB6aF8qw-d1TFF3XX1OKgCpXC8%3DQ9dyfYbGed_w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
Le 05/02/2019 à 16:29, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>
> manylinux2010 hasn't stalled, it's been progressing slowly. Apparently
> pip 19.0 is out which supports downloading and installing manylinux2010
> packages. See status page here:
> https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/issues/179#issuecomment-457002180
>
> Cool! The problem is that it doesn't solve the C++14 issue, right?
I'm not sure. But apparently this may be the case (due to C++ ABI
issues), if you read this comment and the subsequent ones here:
https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/pull/152#discussion_r167242743
Regards
Antoine.
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com>.
Thanks everyone for attending the meeting! It was great to have people
from so many different groups so we can figure out how to solve this
best for everyone. :)
A lot was discussed, I split the notes from the wheel part of the
discussion out into a separate doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uYZK2jQtDUPpo3AHe18ZCH1jS9be9s8zR3axLR1SOG0/edit#
It is set to globally commentable so please add any thing that was
missed / incorrect.
We should definitely have a follow up call later on so the folks in
Europe can make it too. Does 19th Feb (Tuesday) 5pm UTC work for
everyone? (9am PST, noon EST, 1am Wednesday Singapore).
Thanks,
Jason
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 08:06, Philipp Moritz <pc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the meeting! One question concerning a point that is still not super clear to me:
>
> Say we define a new manylinux standard based on gcc >=5 (with stable c++11 support). There will still be a lot of wheels form the manylinux1 days that are built against gcc 4.8 that might use the c++11 features before they became stable. How do we prevent bugs from that? Is the plan to convince everybody who uses these c++11 features to use the new manylinux standard?
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 8:14 AM Jonathan Helmus <jh...@anaconda.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/5/19 9:29 AM, 'Manuel Klimek' via TensorFlow Developers wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:28 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 05/02/2019 à 16:22, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>>> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:01 PM Uwe L. Korn <xhochy@gmail.com
>>> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Also to reiterate a point raised earlier: C++11 with manylinux1
>>> > works smoothly. With gcc 4.8.5, everything we need in Arrow
>>> > supported. C++14 and more are out of scope and can only be used
>>> > starting with manylinux{2010/2014}.
>>> >
>>> > From the requirements side (Martin will correct me if I'm getting these
>>> > wrong):
>>> > - it seems like from the TF point of view, our users are on pip, so we
>>> > need to deliver there
>>> > - LLVM is going to require C++14 ~in March as far as I can tell
>>> > - from trying to find info about manylinux2010 / 14, it seems like these
>>> > have stalled? (but I'm happy to be proven wrong here :)
>>>
>>> manylinux2010 hasn't stalled, it's been progressing slowly. Apparently
>>> pip 19.0 is out which supports downloading and installing manylinux2010
>>> packages. See status page here:
>>> https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/issues/179#issuecomment-457002180
>>
>>
>> Cool! The problem is that it doesn't solve the C++14 issue, right?
>>
>>
>> Devtoolset-7 can be installed on RHEL6/CentOS 6 which is the reference distribution of manylinux2010. Devtoolset-7 includes GCC 7.3.1 which has full support for C++14. On RHEL6/CentOS 6 the devtoolset compilers target the older GCC C++ ABI (-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0) and will not emit the newer ABI. There is a open pull request to the manylinux repository to create a docker image containing this toolset which may be of interest:
>>
>> https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/pull/252
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> - Jonathan Helmus
>>
>>
>>> manylinux2014 is an entirely different question. It needs interested
>>> parties to gather and devise a spec and then get it accepted as a new PEP.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antoine.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TensorFlow Developers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to developers+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/developers/.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/d/msgid/developers/CAOsfVvnY5jSsB6aF8qw-d1TFF3XX1OKgCpXC8%3DQ9dyfYbGed_w%40mail.gmail.com.
>>
>>
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Philipp Moritz <pc...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the meeting! One question concerning a point that is still not
super clear to me:
Say we define a new manylinux standard based on gcc >=5 (with stable c++11
support). There will still be a lot of wheels form the manylinux1 days that
are built against gcc 4.8 that might use the c++11 features before they
became stable. How do we prevent bugs from that? Is the plan to convince
everybody who uses these c++11 features to use the new manylinux standard?
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 8:14 AM Jonathan Helmus <jh...@anaconda.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/5/19 9:29 AM, 'Manuel Klimek' via TensorFlow Developers wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:28 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Le 05/02/2019 à 16:22, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:01 PM Uwe L. Korn <xhochy@gmail.com
>> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Also to reiterate a point raised earlier: C++11 with manylinux1
>> > works smoothly. With gcc 4.8.5, everything we need in Arrow
>> > supported. C++14 and more are out of scope and can only be used
>> > starting with manylinux{2010/2014}.
>> >
>> > From the requirements side (Martin will correct me if I'm getting these
>> > wrong):
>> > - it seems like from the TF point of view, our users are on pip, so we
>> > need to deliver there
>> > - LLVM is going to require C++14 ~in March as far as I can tell
>> > - from trying to find info about manylinux2010 / 14, it seems like these
>> > have stalled? (but I'm happy to be proven wrong here :)
>>
>> manylinux2010 hasn't stalled, it's been progressing slowly. Apparently
>> pip 19.0 is out which supports downloading and installing manylinux2010
>> packages. See status page here:
>> https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/issues/179#issuecomment-457002180
>
>
> Cool! The problem is that it doesn't solve the C++14 issue, right?
>
>
> Devtoolset-7 can be installed on RHEL6/CentOS 6 which is the reference
> distribution of manylinux2010. Devtoolset-7 includes GCC 7.3.1 which has
> full support for C++14. On RHEL6/CentOS 6 the devtoolset compilers target
> the older GCC C++ ABI (-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0) and will not emit the
> newer ABI. There is a open pull request to the manylinux repository to
> create a docker image containing this toolset which may be of interest:
>
> https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/pull/252
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Jonathan Helmus
>
>
> manylinux2014 is an entirely different question. It needs interested
>> parties to gather and devise a spec and then get it accepted as a new PEP.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antoine.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TensorFlow Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to developers+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org.
> Visit this group at
> https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/developers/.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/d/msgid/developers/CAOsfVvnY5jSsB6aF8qw-d1TFF3XX1OKgCpXC8%3DQ9dyfYbGed_w%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/d/msgid/developers/CAOsfVvnY5jSsB6aF8qw-d1TFF3XX1OKgCpXC8%3DQ9dyfYbGed_w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
Le 05/02/2019 à 16:22, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:01 PM Uwe L. Korn <xhochy@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Also to reiterate a point raised earlier: C++11 with manylinux1
> works smoothly. With gcc 4.8.5, everything we need in Arrow
> supported. C++14 and more are out of scope and can only be used
> starting with manylinux{2010/2014}.
>
> From the requirements side (Martin will correct me if I'm getting these
> wrong):
> - it seems like from the TF point of view, our users are on pip, so we
> need to deliver there
> - LLVM is going to require C++14 ~in March as far as I can tell
> - from trying to find info about manylinux2010 / 14, it seems like these
> have stalled? (but I'm happy to be proven wrong here :)
manylinux2010 hasn't stalled, it's been progressing slowly. Apparently
pip 19.0 is out which supports downloading and installing manylinux2010
packages. See status page here:
https://github.com/pypa/manylinux/issues/179#issuecomment-457002180
manylinux2014 is an entirely different question. It needs interested
parties to gather and devise a spec and then get it accepted as a new PEP.
Regards
Antoine.
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Robert Nishihara <ro...@gmail.com>.
Replying to the thread because the last two messages got dropped.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:00 AM soumith <so...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think trying to package CUDA is the wrong way to think about it.
> Instead, perhaps you should try to make the package compatible with
> system CUDA installs.
>
> I agree in principle.
> The problem fundamentally stems from user expectation.
>
> In my ~6+ years of supporting Torch and PyTorch, installing CUDA on a
> system can take days, with a user mean approximately half a day. It might
> be userland incompetence, or that CUDA is a magical snowflake, but the
> reality is that installing CUDA is never great.
> So, a huge amount of issues reported by userland are side-effects from
> broken CUDA installs.
> It doesn't help that the PyPI user expectations of "my package should just
> work after a pip install".
>
> If we can reliably install an up-to-date CUDA in a standardized way, and
> NVIDIA simply doesn't sidestep the userland issues by saying "user our
> docker", or "our PPA is 100% reliable", we would've been in a better state.
>
> Until then, I think it's best that we find a solution for PyPI users that
> can work out of box with PyPI.
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:52 PM Antoine Pitrou <so...@pitrou.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 01:45:34 +0800
> > Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:30, soumith <so...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately I'll be on a long flight, and cannot make it to the
> > SIGBuild meeting.
> > > > I'm definitely interested in the meeting notes and any follow-up
> > meeting.
> > > >
> > > > > I think we should leave CUDA out of the
> > > > discussion initially and see if we can get the cpu-only wheel working
> > > > correctly. Hopefully cpu-only is viable on manylinux2014 then we can
> > > > tackle CUDA afterwards.
> > > >
> > > > 50% of the complexity is in the CUDA packaging.
> > > > The other 50% is in shipping a more modern libstdc++.so
> > > > I believe we'll make progress if we ignore CUDA, but we'll not
> address
> > half of the issue.
> > >
> > > Yeah, we'll definitely need both to solve it fully. My thinking is
> > > that all packages need at least C++11 but only some need CUDA. Or
> > > might we end up where the libstcc++.so is incompatible with CUDA if we
> > > don't work on everything together?
> >
> > I think trying to package CUDA is the wrong way to think about it.
> > Instead, perhaps you should try to make the package compatible with
> > system CUDA installs.
> >
> > For example, the Numba pip wheel almost works out-of-the-box with a
> > system CUDA install on Ubuntu 18.04. I say "almost" because I had to
> > set two environment variables:
> > https://github.com/numba/numba/issues/3738
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Antoine.
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by soumith <so...@gmail.com>.
> I think trying to package CUDA is the wrong way to think about it.
Instead, perhaps you should try to make the package compatible with
system CUDA installs.
I agree in principle.
The problem fundamentally stems from user expectation.
In my ~6+ years of supporting Torch and PyTorch, installing CUDA on a
system can take days, with a user mean approximately half a day. It might
be userland incompetence, or that CUDA is a magical snowflake, but the
reality is that installing CUDA is never great.
So, a huge amount of issues reported by userland are side-effects from
broken CUDA installs.
It doesn't help that the PyPI user expectations of "my package should just
work after a pip install".
If we can reliably install an up-to-date CUDA in a standardized way, and
NVIDIA simply doesn't sidestep the userland issues by saying "user our
docker", or "our PPA is 100% reliable", we would've been in a better state.
Until then, I think it's best that we find a solution for PyPI users that
can work out of box with PyPI.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:52 PM Antoine Pitrou <so...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 01:45:34 +0800
> Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:30, soumith <so...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately I'll be on a long flight, and cannot make it to the
> SIGBuild meeting.
> > > I'm definitely interested in the meeting notes and any follow-up
> meeting.
> > >
> > > > I think we should leave CUDA out of the
> > > discussion initially and see if we can get the cpu-only wheel working
> > > correctly. Hopefully cpu-only is viable on manylinux2014 then we can
> > > tackle CUDA afterwards.
> > >
> > > 50% of the complexity is in the CUDA packaging.
> > > The other 50% is in shipping a more modern libstdc++.so
> > > I believe we'll make progress if we ignore CUDA, but we'll not address
> half of the issue.
> >
> > Yeah, we'll definitely need both to solve it fully. My thinking is
> > that all packages need at least C++11 but only some need CUDA. Or
> > might we end up where the libstcc++.so is incompatible with CUDA if we
> > don't work on everything together?
>
> I think trying to package CUDA is the wrong way to think about it.
> Instead, perhaps you should try to make the package compatible with
> system CUDA installs.
>
> For example, the Numba pip wheel almost works out-of-the-box with a
> system CUDA install on Ubuntu 18.04. I say "almost" because I had to
> set two environment variables:
> https://github.com/numba/numba/issues/3738
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
>
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <so...@pitrou.net>.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 01:45:34 +0800
Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:30, soumith <so...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately I'll be on a long flight, and cannot make it to the SIGBuild meeting.
> > I'm definitely interested in the meeting notes and any follow-up meeting.
> >
> > > I think we should leave CUDA out of the
> > discussion initially and see if we can get the cpu-only wheel working
> > correctly. Hopefully cpu-only is viable on manylinux2014 then we can
> > tackle CUDA afterwards.
> >
> > 50% of the complexity is in the CUDA packaging.
> > The other 50% is in shipping a more modern libstdc++.so
> > I believe we'll make progress if we ignore CUDA, but we'll not address half of the issue.
>
> Yeah, we'll definitely need both to solve it fully. My thinking is
> that all packages need at least C++11 but only some need CUDA. Or
> might we end up where the libstcc++.so is incompatible with CUDA if we
> don't work on everything together?
I think trying to package CUDA is the wrong way to think about it.
Instead, perhaps you should try to make the package compatible with
system CUDA installs.
For example, the Numba pip wheel almost works out-of-the-box with a
system CUDA install on Ubuntu 18.04. I say "almost" because I had to
set two environment variables:
https://github.com/numba/numba/issues/3738
Regards
Antoine.
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com>.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:30, soumith <so...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately I'll be on a long flight, and cannot make it to the SIGBuild meeting.
> I'm definitely interested in the meeting notes and any follow-up meeting.
>
> > I think we should leave CUDA out of the
> discussion initially and see if we can get the cpu-only wheel working
> correctly. Hopefully cpu-only is viable on manylinux2014 then we can
> tackle CUDA afterwards.
>
> 50% of the complexity is in the CUDA packaging.
> The other 50% is in shipping a more modern libstdc++.so
> I believe we'll make progress if we ignore CUDA, but we'll not address half of the issue.
Yeah, we'll definitely need both to solve it fully. My thinking is
that all packages need at least C++11 but only some need CUDA. Or
might we end up where the libstcc++.so is incompatible with CUDA if we
don't work on everything together?
-- Jason
>
> --
> S
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:21 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 04/02/2019 à 17:36, Uwe L. Korn a écrit :
>> > I think that problem is whether this would get merged. Conda was created
>> > after a meeting with Guido van Rossum and other folks at a PyCon quite
>> > some years ago where the final call was that this is not a problem of
>> > the core Python ecosystem and that the scientific Python community has
>> > to roll their own solution.
>> >
>> > @Wes McKinney <ma...@gmail.com> or someone else: Were you at
>> > this meeting and can outline why it was declined back then?
>>
>> I'm not sure anyone in this CC list was at that meeting (I wasn't). If
>> it's important to have the precise answer, I can try to CC someone.
>>
>> But I think the general answer is that it's a complex and difficult
>> endeavour, and the contribution structures inside the Python packaging
>> ecosystem, where most people are volunteers, didn't allow for it.
>> There's already enough lag maintaining the current software stack (pip
>> et al.).
>>
>> Anaconda then came up and became history, so to speak.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antoine.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Uwe
>> >
>> > Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb Manuel Klimek
>> > <klimek@google.com <ma...@google.com>>:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:32 PM Uwe L. Korn <xhochy@gmail.com
>> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Just as a heads-up: I would like to also join the meeting but am
>> > also located in Europe.
>> >
>> > I have spent quite some time with the packaging of wheels for
>> > pyarrow and turbodbc thus I would like to also give input on
>> > this. For Apache Arrow, I see newer manylinux2014 standard as a
>> > possible way to go. I'm not so fond of rolloing lib(std)c++
>> > packages inside of pip. It's sadly the case that the features of
>> > pip don't allow a good dependency resolution, also with taking
>> > CUDA into account, a dependency resolution that differs between
>> > source and binary builds of a package. For this case, exactly
>> > conda was developed because it was considered out-of-scope for
>> > the core Python packaging system. I'm not sure whether we
>> > actually can fit all the requirements of the packages that take
>> > part in this mail thread into pip without simply reimplementing
>> > conda inside of pip.
>> >
>> >
>> > One question is probably: what would that entail, and why would it
>> > be bad? :)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Uwe
>> >
>> > Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 16:34 Uhr schrieb Jason Zaman
>> > <jason@perfinion.com <ma...@perfinion.com>>:
>> >
>> > yeah that's expected. The timing is complicated with people
>> > spread all
>> > over. We will post notes after the meeting on the SIG-Build
>> > mailing
>> > list and I'd also be up for organizing a separate call with
>> > europe
>> > folks if that would be of interest.
>> >
>> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 19:29, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG Build
>> > <build@tensorflow.org <ma...@tensorflow.org>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > +Dmitri Gribenko
>> > >
>> > > Dmitri has experience with EasyBuild, which seems to be
>> > used by the HPC community to solve the bootstrap problem and
>> > could be used to build a toolchain image & pip package.
>> > >
>> > > Unfortunately we'll not be able to join the meeting as
>> > it's at midnight CEST - looking forward to the conclusions
>> > from the meeting!
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:00 AM Jason Zaman
>> > <jason@perfinion.com <ma...@perfinion.com>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Hey all,
>> > >>
>> > >> We're having the TensorFlow SIG-Build meeting on 5th Feb
>> > 3pm PST
>> > >>
>> > (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190205T15&p1=224).
>> > >> Agenda is linked from:
>> > >>
>> > https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/forum/#!topic/build/akyPcGoBIy4
>> > >>
>> > >> I'd like to invite everyone from this thread to join the
>> > call if at
>> > >> all possible. The agenda for this meeting will spend most
>> > of the time
>> > >> focusing on the manylinux issue and hopefully we can get
>> > together to
>> > >> flesh out a decent plan on how to tackle this.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >> Jason
>> > >>
>> > >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 23:34, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG Build
>> > >> <build@tensorflow.org <ma...@tensorflow.org>> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:21 PM Antoine Pitrou
>> > <antoine@python.org <ma...@python.org>> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Le 30/01/2019 à 16:09, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:51 PM Antoine Pitrou
>> > <antoine@python.org <ma...@python.org>
>> > >> >> > <mailto:antoine@python.org
>> > <ma...@python.org>>> wrote:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Le 30/01/2019 à 15:35, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > Am I reading you wrong, or are you
>> > actually proposing to
>> > >> >> > package another
>> > >> >> > > libstdc++ version as a Python wheel?
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > That would be the idea.
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > If so, are you going to claim that the
>> > given wheel is
>> > >> >> > > manylinux-compatible?
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > That is my question :) Why wouldn't it be?
>> > (I'd link it against
>> > >> >> > > manylinux libc and other C-only system libs)
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > The problem is when you are loading two modules
>> > that link against
>> > >> >> > different libstdc++ versions in the same
>> > process. Incidentally, it's
>> > >> >> > the problem which prompted this discussion.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Sure, I'm aware :) I think as long as the
>> > requirement that all libraries
>> > >> >> > that want to exchange runtime-ABI-compatible
>> > versions are compiled with
>> > >> >> > the same toolchain, we can provide a way to mangle
>> > the symbols
>> > >> >> > differently.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Ah, I see... Indeed, mangling the symbols may work for
>> > this.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> That said, if you're looking to create a de facto
>> > standard, why can't it
>> > >> >> be proposed as a manylinux iteration?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I'd have thought because it doesn't change the system
>> > requirements, while manylinux seems to be all about system
>> > requirements.
>> > >> > The idea is that that toolchain would still work on any
>> > manylinux compatible machine.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Regards
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Antoine.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to
>> > the Google Groups "SIG Build" group.
>> > >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
>> > emails from it, send an email to
>> > build+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org
>> > <ma...@tensorflow.org>.
>> > >> > Visit this group at
>> > https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to
>> > the Google Groups "SIG Build" group.
>> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
>> > from it, send an email to build+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org
>> > <ma...@tensorflow.org>.
>> > > Visit this group at
>> > https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
>> >
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by soumith <so...@gmail.com>.
Unfortunately I'll be on a long flight, and cannot make it to the SIGBuild
meeting.
I'm definitely interested in the meeting notes and any follow-up meeting.
> I think we should leave CUDA out of the
discussion initially and see if we can get the cpu-only wheel working
correctly. Hopefully cpu-only is viable on manylinux2014 then we can
tackle CUDA afterwards.
50% of the complexity is in the CUDA packaging.
The other 50% is in shipping a more modern libstdc++.so
I believe we'll make progress if we ignore CUDA, but we'll not address half
of the issue.
--
S
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:21 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
> Le 04/02/2019 à 17:36, Uwe L. Korn a écrit :
> > I think that problem is whether this would get merged. Conda was created
> > after a meeting with Guido van Rossum and other folks at a PyCon quite
> > some years ago where the final call was that this is not a problem of
> > the core Python ecosystem and that the scientific Python community has
> > to roll their own solution.
> >
> > @Wes McKinney <ma...@gmail.com> or someone else: Were you at
> > this meeting and can outline why it was declined back then?
>
> I'm not sure anyone in this CC list was at that meeting (I wasn't). If
> it's important to have the precise answer, I can try to CC someone.
>
> But I think the general answer is that it's a complex and difficult
> endeavour, and the contribution structures inside the Python packaging
> ecosystem, where most people are volunteers, didn't allow for it.
> There's already enough lag maintaining the current software stack (pip
> et al.).
>
> Anaconda then came up and became history, so to speak.
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> >
> > Uwe
> >
> > Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb Manuel Klimek
> > <klimek@google.com <ma...@google.com>>:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:32 PM Uwe L. Korn <xhochy@gmail.com
> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Just as a heads-up: I would like to also join the meeting but am
> > also located in Europe.
> >
> > I have spent quite some time with the packaging of wheels for
> > pyarrow and turbodbc thus I would like to also give input on
> > this. For Apache Arrow, I see newer manylinux2014 standard as a
> > possible way to go. I'm not so fond of rolloing lib(std)c++
> > packages inside of pip. It's sadly the case that the features of
> > pip don't allow a good dependency resolution, also with taking
> > CUDA into account, a dependency resolution that differs between
> > source and binary builds of a package. For this case, exactly
> > conda was developed because it was considered out-of-scope for
> > the core Python packaging system. I'm not sure whether we
> > actually can fit all the requirements of the packages that take
> > part in this mail thread into pip without simply reimplementing
> > conda inside of pip.
> >
> >
> > One question is probably: what would that entail, and why would it
> > be bad? :)
> >
> >
> >
> > Uwe
> >
> > Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 16:34 Uhr schrieb Jason Zaman
> > <jason@perfinion.com <ma...@perfinion.com>>:
> >
> > yeah that's expected. The timing is complicated with people
> > spread all
> > over. We will post notes after the meeting on the SIG-Build
> > mailing
> > list and I'd also be up for organizing a separate call with
> > europe
> > folks if that would be of interest.
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 19:29, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG Build
> > <build@tensorflow.org <ma...@tensorflow.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > > +Dmitri Gribenko
> > >
> > > Dmitri has experience with EasyBuild, which seems to be
> > used by the HPC community to solve the bootstrap problem and
> > could be used to build a toolchain image & pip package.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately we'll not be able to join the meeting as
> > it's at midnight CEST - looking forward to the conclusions
> > from the meeting!
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:00 AM Jason Zaman
> > <jason@perfinion.com <ma...@perfinion.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hey all,
> > >>
> > >> We're having the TensorFlow SIG-Build meeting on 5th Feb
> > 3pm PST
> > >>
> > (
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190205T15&p1=224
> ).
> > >> Agenda is linked from:
> > >>
> >
> https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/forum/#!topic/build/akyPcGoBIy4
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to invite everyone from this thread to join the
> > call if at
> > >> all possible. The agenda for this meeting will spend most
> > of the time
> > >> focusing on the manylinux issue and hopefully we can get
> > together to
> > >> flesh out a decent plan on how to tackle this.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Jason
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 23:34, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG
> Build
> > >> <build@tensorflow.org <ma...@tensorflow.org>>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:21 PM Antoine Pitrou
> > <antoine@python.org <ma...@python.org>> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Le 30/01/2019 à 16:09, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:51 PM Antoine Pitrou
> > <antoine@python.org <ma...@python.org>
> > >> >> > <mailto:antoine@python.org
> > <ma...@python.org>>> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Le 30/01/2019 à 15:35, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Am I reading you wrong, or are you
> > actually proposing to
> > >> >> > package another
> > >> >> > > libstdc++ version as a Python wheel?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > That would be the idea.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > If so, are you going to claim that the
> > given wheel is
> > >> >> > > manylinux-compatible?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > That is my question :) Why wouldn't it be?
> > (I'd link it against
> > >> >> > > manylinux libc and other C-only system libs)
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The problem is when you are loading two modules
> > that link against
> > >> >> > different libstdc++ versions in the same
> > process. Incidentally, it's
> > >> >> > the problem which prompted this discussion.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Sure, I'm aware :) I think as long as the
> > requirement that all libraries
> > >> >> > that want to exchange runtime-ABI-compatible
> > versions are compiled with
> > >> >> > the same toolchain, we can provide a way to mangle
> > the symbols
> > >> >> > differently.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Ah, I see... Indeed, mangling the symbols may work for
> > this.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> That said, if you're looking to create a de facto
> > standard, why can't it
> > >> >> be proposed as a manylinux iteration?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I'd have thought because it doesn't change the system
> > requirements, while manylinux seems to be all about system
> > requirements.
> > >> > The idea is that that toolchain would still work on any
> > manylinux compatible machine.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Regards
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Antoine.
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to
> > the Google Groups "SIG Build" group.
> > >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
> > emails from it, send an email to
> > build+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org
> > <ma...@tensorflow.org>.
> > >> > Visit this group at
> > https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to
> > the Google Groups "SIG Build" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> > from it, send an email to build+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org
> > <ma...@tensorflow.org>.
> > > Visit this group at
> > https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
> >
>
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
Le 04/02/2019 à 17:36, Uwe L. Korn a écrit :
> I think that problem is whether this would get merged. Conda was created
> after a meeting with Guido van Rossum and other folks at a PyCon quite
> some years ago where the final call was that this is not a problem of
> the core Python ecosystem and that the scientific Python community has
> to roll their own solution.
>
> @Wes McKinney <ma...@gmail.com> or someone else: Were you at
> this meeting and can outline why it was declined back then?
I'm not sure anyone in this CC list was at that meeting (I wasn't). If
it's important to have the precise answer, I can try to CC someone.
But I think the general answer is that it's a complex and difficult
endeavour, and the contribution structures inside the Python packaging
ecosystem, where most people are volunteers, didn't allow for it.
There's already enough lag maintaining the current software stack (pip
et al.).
Anaconda then came up and became history, so to speak.
Regards
Antoine.
>
> Uwe
>
> Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb Manuel Klimek
> <klimek@google.com <ma...@google.com>>:
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:32 PM Uwe L. Korn <xhochy@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Just as a heads-up: I would like to also join the meeting but am
> also located in Europe.
>
> I have spent quite some time with the packaging of wheels for
> pyarrow and turbodbc thus I would like to also give input on
> this. For Apache Arrow, I see newer manylinux2014 standard as a
> possible way to go. I'm not so fond of rolloing lib(std)c++
> packages inside of pip. It's sadly the case that the features of
> pip don't allow a good dependency resolution, also with taking
> CUDA into account, a dependency resolution that differs between
> source and binary builds of a package. For this case, exactly
> conda was developed because it was considered out-of-scope for
> the core Python packaging system. I'm not sure whether we
> actually can fit all the requirements of the packages that take
> part in this mail thread into pip without simply reimplementing
> conda inside of pip.
>
>
> One question is probably: what would that entail, and why would it
> be bad? :)
>
>
>
> Uwe
>
> Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 16:34 Uhr schrieb Jason Zaman
> <jason@perfinion.com <ma...@perfinion.com>>:
>
> yeah that's expected. The timing is complicated with people
> spread all
> over. We will post notes after the meeting on the SIG-Build
> mailing
> list and I'd also be up for organizing a separate call with
> europe
> folks if that would be of interest.
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 19:29, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG Build
> <build@tensorflow.org <ma...@tensorflow.org>> wrote:
> >
> > +Dmitri Gribenko
> >
> > Dmitri has experience with EasyBuild, which seems to be
> used by the HPC community to solve the bootstrap problem and
> could be used to build a toolchain image & pip package.
> >
> > Unfortunately we'll not be able to join the meeting as
> it's at midnight CEST - looking forward to the conclusions
> from the meeting!
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:00 AM Jason Zaman
> <jason@perfinion.com <ma...@perfinion.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> We're having the TensorFlow SIG-Build meeting on 5th Feb
> 3pm PST
> >>
> (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190205T15&p1=224).
> >> Agenda is linked from:
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/forum/#!topic/build/akyPcGoBIy4
> >>
> >> I'd like to invite everyone from this thread to join the
> call if at
> >> all possible. The agenda for this meeting will spend most
> of the time
> >> focusing on the manylinux issue and hopefully we can get
> together to
> >> flesh out a decent plan on how to tackle this.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jason
> >>
> >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 23:34, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG Build
> >> <build@tensorflow.org <ma...@tensorflow.org>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:21 PM Antoine Pitrou
> <antoine@python.org <ma...@python.org>> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Le 30/01/2019 à 16:09, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:51 PM Antoine Pitrou
> <antoine@python.org <ma...@python.org>
> >> >> > <mailto:antoine@python.org
> <ma...@python.org>>> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Le 30/01/2019 à 15:35, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Am I reading you wrong, or are you
> actually proposing to
> >> >> > package another
> >> >> > > libstdc++ version as a Python wheel?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > That would be the idea.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > If so, are you going to claim that the
> given wheel is
> >> >> > > manylinux-compatible?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > That is my question :) Why wouldn't it be?
> (I'd link it against
> >> >> > > manylinux libc and other C-only system libs)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The problem is when you are loading two modules
> that link against
> >> >> > different libstdc++ versions in the same
> process. Incidentally, it's
> >> >> > the problem which prompted this discussion.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sure, I'm aware :) I think as long as the
> requirement that all libraries
> >> >> > that want to exchange runtime-ABI-compatible
> versions are compiled with
> >> >> > the same toolchain, we can provide a way to mangle
> the symbols
> >> >> > differently.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah, I see... Indeed, mangling the symbols may work for
> this.
> >> >>
> >> >> That said, if you're looking to create a de facto
> standard, why can't it
> >> >> be proposed as a manylinux iteration?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'd have thought because it doesn't change the system
> requirements, while manylinux seems to be all about system
> requirements.
> >> > The idea is that that toolchain would still work on any
> manylinux compatible machine.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards
> >> >>
> >> >> Antoine.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to
> the Google Groups "SIG Build" group.
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
> emails from it, send an email to
> build+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org
> <ma...@tensorflow.org>.
> >> > Visit this group at
> https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to
> the Google Groups "SIG Build" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
> from it, send an email to build+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org
> <ma...@tensorflow.org>.
> > Visit this group at
> https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
>
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com>.
Hm, lets have this SIG-Build meeting as scheduled and then have
another follow-up later probably around 9am PST, 6pm Europe, 1am
Singapore. Does that time work for everyone? (Date TBD).
My take on this whole thing is that it sounds a lot like
re-implementing an entire distro complete with package manager inside
pip just because pip is not sufficient for what we need. My longer
term goal is to fix things up so TensorFlow can just be packaged
directly in distro package repos and most users would go that route.
This would definitely not be a universal solution and we'd still need
to have a pip package anyway. I think we should leave CUDA out of the
discussion initially and see if we can get the cpu-only wheel working
correctly. Hopefully cpu-only is viable on manylinux2014 then we can
tackle CUDA afterwards.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 00:36, Uwe L. Korn <xh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think that problem is whether this would get merged. Conda was created after a meeting with Guido van Rossum and other folks at a PyCon quite some years ago where the final call was that this is not a problem of the core Python ecosystem and that the scientific Python community has to roll their own solution.
>
> @Wes McKinney or someone else: Were you at this meeting and can outline why it was declined back then?
>
> Uwe
>
> Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb Manuel Klimek <kl...@google.com>:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:32 PM Uwe L. Korn <xh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just as a heads-up: I would like to also join the meeting but am also located in Europe.
>>>
>>> I have spent quite some time with the packaging of wheels for pyarrow and turbodbc thus I would like to also give input on this. For Apache Arrow, I see newer manylinux2014 standard as a possible way to go. I'm not so fond of rolloing lib(std)c++ packages inside of pip. It's sadly the case that the features of pip don't allow a good dependency resolution, also with taking CUDA into account, a dependency resolution that differs between source and binary builds of a package. For this case, exactly conda was developed because it was considered out-of-scope for the core Python packaging system. I'm not sure whether we actually can fit all the requirements of the packages that take part in this mail thread into pip without simply reimplementing conda inside of pip.
>>
>>
>> One question is probably: what would that entail, and why would it be bad? :)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uwe
>>>
>>> Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 16:34 Uhr schrieb Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com>:
>>>>
>>>> yeah that's expected. The timing is complicated with people spread all
>>>> over. We will post notes after the meeting on the SIG-Build mailing
>>>> list and I'd also be up for organizing a separate call with europe
>>>> folks if that would be of interest.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 19:29, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG Build
>>>> <bu...@tensorflow.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > +Dmitri Gribenko
>>>> >
>>>> > Dmitri has experience with EasyBuild, which seems to be used by the HPC community to solve the bootstrap problem and could be used to build a toolchain image & pip package.
>>>> >
>>>> > Unfortunately we'll not be able to join the meeting as it's at midnight CEST - looking forward to the conclusions from the meeting!
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:00 AM Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hey all,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> We're having the TensorFlow SIG-Build meeting on 5th Feb 3pm PST
>>>> >> (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190205T15&p1=224).
>>>> >> Agenda is linked from:
>>>> >> https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/forum/#!topic/build/akyPcGoBIy4
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'd like to invite everyone from this thread to join the call if at
>>>> >> all possible. The agenda for this meeting will spend most of the time
>>>> >> focusing on the manylinux issue and hopefully we can get together to
>>>> >> flesh out a decent plan on how to tackle this.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>> >> Jason
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 23:34, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG Build
>>>> >> <bu...@tensorflow.org> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:21 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Le 30/01/2019 à 16:09, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:51 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org
>>>> >> >> > <ma...@python.org>> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > Le 30/01/2019 à 15:35, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > > Am I reading you wrong, or are you actually proposing to
>>>> >> >> > package another
>>>> >> >> > > libstdc++ version as a Python wheel?
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > > That would be the idea.
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > > If so, are you going to claim that the given wheel is
>>>> >> >> > > manylinux-compatible?
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> > > That is my question :) Why wouldn't it be? (I'd link it against
>>>> >> >> > > manylinux libc and other C-only system libs)
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > The problem is when you are loading two modules that link against
>>>> >> >> > different libstdc++ versions in the same process. Incidentally, it's
>>>> >> >> > the problem which prompted this discussion.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > Sure, I'm aware :) I think as long as the requirement that all libraries
>>>> >> >> > that want to exchange runtime-ABI-compatible versions are compiled with
>>>> >> >> > the same toolchain, we can provide a way to mangle the symbols
>>>> >> >> > differently.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Ah, I see... Indeed, mangling the symbols may work for this.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> That said, if you're looking to create a de facto standard, why can't it
>>>> >> >> be proposed as a manylinux iteration?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > I'd have thought because it doesn't change the system requirements, while manylinux seems to be all about system requirements.
>>>> >> > The idea is that that toolchain would still work on any manylinux compatible machine.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Regards
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Antoine.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > --
>>>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIG Build" group.
>>>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to build+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org.
>>>> >> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIG Build" group.
>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to build+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org.
>>>> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com>.
yeah that's expected. The timing is complicated with people spread all
over. We will post notes after the meeting on the SIG-Build mailing
list and I'd also be up for organizing a separate call with europe
folks if that would be of interest.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 19:29, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG Build
<bu...@tensorflow.org> wrote:
>
> +Dmitri Gribenko
>
> Dmitri has experience with EasyBuild, which seems to be used by the HPC community to solve the bootstrap problem and could be used to build a toolchain image & pip package.
>
> Unfortunately we'll not be able to join the meeting as it's at midnight CEST - looking forward to the conclusions from the meeting!
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:00 AM Jason Zaman <ja...@perfinion.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> We're having the TensorFlow SIG-Build meeting on 5th Feb 3pm PST
>> (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190205T15&p1=224).
>> Agenda is linked from:
>> https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/forum/#!topic/build/akyPcGoBIy4
>>
>> I'd like to invite everyone from this thread to join the call if at
>> all possible. The agenda for this meeting will spend most of the time
>> focusing on the manylinux issue and hopefully we can get together to
>> flesh out a decent plan on how to tackle this.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jason
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 23:34, 'Manuel Klimek' via SIG Build
>> <bu...@tensorflow.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:21 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Le 30/01/2019 à 16:09, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:51 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org
>> >> > <ma...@python.org>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Le 30/01/2019 à 15:35, Manuel Klimek a écrit :
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Am I reading you wrong, or are you actually proposing to
>> >> > package another
>> >> > > libstdc++ version as a Python wheel?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > That would be the idea.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > If so, are you going to claim that the given wheel is
>> >> > > manylinux-compatible?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > That is my question :) Why wouldn't it be? (I'd link it against
>> >> > > manylinux libc and other C-only system libs)
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem is when you are loading two modules that link against
>> >> > different libstdc++ versions in the same process. Incidentally, it's
>> >> > the problem which prompted this discussion.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Sure, I'm aware :) I think as long as the requirement that all libraries
>> >> > that want to exchange runtime-ABI-compatible versions are compiled with
>> >> > the same toolchain, we can provide a way to mangle the symbols
>> >> > differently.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, I see... Indeed, mangling the symbols may work for this.
>> >>
>> >> That said, if you're looking to create a de facto standard, why can't it
>> >> be proposed as a manylinux iteration?
>> >
>> >
>> > I'd have thought because it doesn't change the system requirements, while manylinux seems to be all about system requirements.
>> > The idea is that that toolchain would still work on any manylinux compatible machine.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >>
>> >> Antoine.
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIG Build" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to build+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org.
>> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIG Build" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to build+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
Re: TensorFlow, PyTorch, and manylinux1
Posted by "Uwe L. Korn" <xh...@gmail.com>.
>
> From the requirements side (Martin will correct me if I'm getting these
> wrong):
> - it seems like from the TF point of view, our users are on pip, so we
> need to deliver there
> - LLVM is going to require C++14 ~in March as far as I can tell
> - from trying to find info about manylinux2010 / 14, it seems like these
> have stalled? (but I'm happy to be proven wrong here :)
>
Can we start a shared Google Doc to collect all the requirements and
constraints?
>
>
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>> Am Di., 5. Feb. 2019 um 12:19 Uhr schrieb Dmitri Gribenko <
>> dmitrig@google.com>:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 12:29 PM Manuel Klimek <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +Dmitri Gribenko <dm...@google.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for looping me in, Manuel.
>>>
>>> So I wanted to go back to the requirements and enumerate possible
>>> solutions.
>>>
>>> From soumith's email:
>>> 1. CUDA support
>>> 2. C++11 support
>>>
>>> Neither newest CUDA, nor C++11 work on manylinux1 (CentOS 5.11).
>>>
>>> The original email does not go into detail why CUDA does not work, but I
>>> can imagine it is because of the old userspace libraries (libc, libstdc++,
>>> libpthread etc). C++11 does not work because of an old libstdc++ and old
>>> GCC.
>>>
>>> *So what can we do about old userspace libraries?*
>>>
>>> *Option "Userspace-1": Pip package uses libraries installed on the
>>> system where the pip package runs.* (AKA the current manylinux
>>> approach.)
>>>
>>> Advantages:
>>> - Smaller download size.
>>>
>>> Disadvantages:
>>> - Pip packages have to be built against an old version of userspace
>>> libraries to be maximally-compatible.
>>> - No nice upgrade path. When we need a specific new feature for
>>> something (e.g., today it is modern CUDA and C++11), we have to bump the
>>> requirements for the host system. We will always be extremely cautious
>>> about not bumping the requirements too much, and therefore we will be
>>> always stuck with oldest possible libraries that can do the job.
>>>
>>> *Option "Userspace-2": When the pip package runs, ignore the system
>>> userspace libraries. Use libraries from somewhere else.*
>>>
>>> Advantages:
>>> - We control which versions of userspace libraries we use. We can use
>>> libraries that are newer than system ones.
>>> - Complete isolation from the userspace of the system where the pip
>>> package runs. The only remaining point of contact with the user's system
>>> is the kernel.
>>>
>>> Disadvantages:
>>> - We need to figure out where to get these libraries from.
>>> - Bigger download size for users.
>>>
>>> So where do we get the userspace libraries from?
>>>
>>> *Option "Userspace-2a": Pip community owns all userspace libraries that
>>> binaries in a pip package can use.*
>>> All userspace components defined by manylinux are packaged into a pip
>>> package. TensorFlow/PyTorch/... pip packages declare what version of the
>>> userspace pip package they depend on.
>>>
>>> Advantages:
>>> - Pip community owns all userspace components.
>>>
>>> Disadvantages:
>>> - Pip community owns way more stuff than before.
>>>
>>> *Option "Userpace-2b": Pip takes all userspace libraries from an
>>> existing packager.*
>>> Same as "Userspace-2a", but instead of owning the build process for the
>>> userspace libraries, we take them from an existing packager, for example,
>>> Debian, CentOS, Anaconda, Nix package manager, whatever we decide on.
>>>
>>> Advantages:
>>> - Pip community controls userspace components.
>>>
>>> Disadvantages:
>>> - Pip community owns more stuff than before.
>>>
>>> *What can we do about old toolchain?*
>>>
>>> *Option "Toolchain-1": Use a toolchain from a certain old distribution,
>>> so that the output is maximally-compatible.*
>>> This option is compatible with any choice of userspace, as long as the
>>> libraries don't require a new compiler or language features.
>>>
>>> Disadvantages:
>>> - Ancient toolchain that does not support modern C++.
>>>
>>> *Option "Toolchain-2": Make a modern toolchain that produces
>>> maximally-compatible output.*
>>> This option is difficult to implement, since a modern toolchain using a
>>> modern C++ version will require a using a contemporary C++ standard library
>>> (libc++ or libstdc++).
>>>
>>> *Option "Toolchain-3": Make a modern toolchain that requires a modern
>>> C++ library.*
>>> AKA what Manuel is proposing. Package modern libc++ as a wheel, make a
>>> Docker container with the corresponding Clang for building binary packages
>>> like Tensorflow.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Dmitri
>>>
>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "SIG Build" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to build+unsubscribe@tensorflow.org.
>> Visit this group at
>> https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/group/build/.
>>
>