You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mxnet.apache.org by "Zai, Alexander" <al...@amazon.com.INVALID> on 2018/11/22 00:54:53 UTC
Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8 speedup with Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With a smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is more significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to have MKLDNN enabled by default (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be merged before 1.4.0 release.
On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy" <pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen 1950X and unit
tests are passing.
Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx" flag.
There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
Pedro.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and companies!
>
> The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this boost "out of the
> box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
>
> Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with regards to
> noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it gracefully fallback?
>
> Hagay
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512 instructions,
> > then +1
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey all,
> > > We have been working hard these past few months to integrate and
> > stabilize
> > > Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet and have made
> > > incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions (such as c5.18x)
> we
> > > have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other platforms (Macs,
> > > AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks can be found
> > here
> > > (
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95650764
> > > and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591).
> > >
> > > Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer to either pip
> > > install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it themselves from
> > > source. Given that we should try to provide the best performance "out
> of
> > > the box” with mxnet we should include this in the default build. The
> > mkldnn
> > > library is included with in the pip package build so it does not
> require
> > an
> > > external dependency.
> > >
> > > There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions on certain
> > > platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while back); but we
> > > added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows users to turn of
> this
> > > feature during runtime. Please bring up any other concerns you may have
> > and
> > > your thoughts on including this accelerator in the default build.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Alex
> > >
> >
>
RE: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by "Zhao, Patric" <pa...@intel.com>.
Hi Kellen,
Thank you very much for your recognition for our works :)
This is a great joint work from the community (Wu Jun, Zheng Da, etc.) and Intel team.
We are continuously improving the quantization flow now and more amazing features will be ready soon.
Thanks,
--Patric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:07 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
>
> I've spent the last few days testing MXNet w/ MKLDNN and quantized models
> and it's a beast. Really good speed improvements on my models, no bugs
> that I've noticed.
>
> I'm in general supportive but I'm still wondering what the story is like when
> there's no AVX instructions present on CPUs. Do we get an illegal instruction
> error, or does it fallback gracefully? So far it sounds like it works on a
> Threadripper and Xen AMD CPU. I can try on a Ryzen. What about older
> Intel or AMD CPUs?
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
> <al...@amazon.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8 speedup
> with
> > Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With a
> > smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is more
> > significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to have
> > MKLDNN enabled by default
> > (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be merged
> > before 1.4.0 release.
> >
> > On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy" <pe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen 1950X
> > and unit
> > tests are passing.
> >
> > Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx" flag.
> > There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko <lu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and companies!
> > >
> > > The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this boost
> > "out of the
> > > box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> > >
> > > Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with
> > regards to
> > > noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it gracefully
> > fallback?
> > >
> > > Hagay
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> > instructions,
> > > > then +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > We have been working hard these past few months to integrate and
> > > > stabilize
> > > > > Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet and
> > have made
> > > > > incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions (such
> > as
> > c5.18x)
> > > we
> > > > > have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> > platforms (Macs,
> > > > > AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks can
> > be found
> > > > here
> > > > > (
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=956507
> 64
> > > > > and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591).
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer to
> > either pip
> > > > > install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> > themselves from
> > > > > source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> > performance "out
> > > of
> > > > > the box” with mxnet we should include this in the default build.
> > The
> > > > mkldnn
> > > > > library is included with in the pip package build so it does not
> > > require
> > > > an
> > > > > external dependency.
> > > > >
> > > > > There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions on
> > certain
> > > > > platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> > back); but we
> > > > > added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows users to
> > turn of
> > > this
> > > > > feature during runtime. Please bring up any other concerns
> > you may have
> > > > and
> > > > > your thoughts on including this accelerator in the default build.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by kellen sunderland <ke...@gmail.com>.
I've spent the last few days testing MXNet w/ MKLDNN and quantized models
and it's a beast. Really good speed improvements on my models, no bugs
that I've noticed.
I'm in general supportive but I'm still wondering what the story is like
when there's no AVX instructions present on CPUs. Do we get an illegal
instruction error, or does it fallback gracefully? So far it sounds like
it works on a Threadripper and Xen AMD CPU. I can try on a Ryzen. What
about older Intel or AMD CPUs?
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander <al...@amazon.com.invalid>
wrote:
> AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8 speedup with
> Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With a smaller
> network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is more significant at
> x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to have MKLDNN enabled by default
> (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be merged
> before 1.4.0 release.
>
> On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy" <pe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen 1950X and
> unit
> tests are passing.
>
> Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx" flag.
> There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
>
> Pedro.
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and companies!
> >
> > The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this boost "out
> of the
> > box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> >
> > Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with regards
> to
> > noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it gracefully
> fallback?
> >
> > Hagay
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> instructions,
> > > then +1
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey all,
> > > > We have been working hard these past few months to integrate and
> > > stabilize
> > > > Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet and have
> made
> > > > incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions (such as
> c5.18x)
> > we
> > > > have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other platforms
> (Macs,
> > > > AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks can be
> found
> > > here
> > > > (
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95650764
> > > > and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591).
> > > >
> > > > Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer to
> either pip
> > > > install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it themselves
> from
> > > > source. Given that we should try to provide the best performance
> "out
> > of
> > > > the box” with mxnet we should include this in the default build.
> The
> > > mkldnn
> > > > library is included with in the pip package build so it does not
> > require
> > > an
> > > > external dependency.
> > > >
> > > > There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions on
> certain
> > > > platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while back);
> but we
> > > > added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows users to
> turn of
> > this
> > > > feature during runtime. Please bring up any other concerns you
> may have
> > > and
> > > > your thoughts on including this accelerator in the default build.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
RE: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by "Zhao, Patric" <pa...@intel.com>.
+1 for making MKL-DNN default in master branch first for broad testing :)
My suggestion is to make MKL-DNN default on the master branch
firstly after 1.4.0 releasing branch is cut off. That will help MKL-DNN backend
to be widely used and tested by MXNet users who are building MXNet from
source. It will also help to expose issues of MKL-DNN backend in the next
releasing cycle. We can decide whether to make it default in pip package for
1.5.0 release according to the feedback from the community. For 1.4.0
release, we can still have MKL-DNN in the mxnet-mkl package.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zai, Alexander [mailto:alexzai@amazon.com.INVALID]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 4:06 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
>
> Thanks for answering Tao. I would like to add that we have the env flag that
> disables MKLDNN operators if regression occurs.
>
> On 11/28/18, 6:05 AM, "Lv, Tao A" <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Hagay, thank you for bringing these questions together. I also
> summarized my opinions here for you easy to check.
>
> - Make MKL-DNN default in MXNet pip package
> [Tao]: My suggestion is to make MKL-DNN default on the master branch
> firstly after 1.4.0 releasing branch is cut off. That will help MKL-DNN backend
> to be widely used and tested by MXNet users who are building MXNet from
> source. It will also help to expose issues of MKL-DNN backend in the next
> releasing cycle. We can decide whether to make it default in pip package for
> 1.5.0 release according to the feedback from the community. For 1.4.0
> release, we can still have MKL-DNN in the mxnet-mkl package.
>
> - What the story is like when there's no AVX instructions present on CPUs.
> Do we get an illegal instruction error, or does it fallback gracefully?
> [Tao]: MKL-DNN has optimizations for every ISA starting with SSE4.2 and
> there is a list for those platforms which are officially supported by MKL-DNN:
> https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements. It should fallback if
> AVX is not supported. Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are
> JITed. So they are supposed to generate code according to the platform
> during runtime and should not have any illegal instruction. For non-JIT code
> in MKL-DNN, same as other code in MXNet, it will generate instructions
> according to the options/flags of compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS
> when build MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling machine. That's
> exactly what we are doing for MKL-DNN build in MXNet. Even without MKL-
> DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal instructions of MXNet when
> users import the pip package on a lower end machine which probably only
> supports SSE.
>
> - Are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled?
> [Tao]: I don’t know any at this time except the LSTM regression which
> hopefully will be fixed soon. I notice the fix has been pushed to MKL-DNN
> master branch. But if we decide to depend on release version only, we need
> wait for the release process of MKL-DNN finishing. If anyone knows other
> issues about MKL-DNN backend, feel free to let me know. :)
>
> - MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit or
> releases? If not we should move to releases before we make it a default
> [Tao]: I don't have strong resistance to release version. But if you want to
> make a rule for MXNet that a submodule should depend on a release version,
> please take all the submodules into consideration. For MKL-DNN, my
> concern is: If the master (development) branch of MXNet relies on a bleeding
> edge commit from MKL-DNN master branch, when MXNet comes to release,
> we need revert many changes in MXNet if MKL-DNN will not have a new
> release at that time, since we need fallback the dependency to a previous
> release version. That might mess up or slow down the development and
> release of MXNet. To avoid that, we always need negotiate with MKL-DNN
> team for the release pace before every release. Please propose a solution
> for this situation and make a plan how to apply it to all submodules.
>
> - MKLDNN versioning mechanism
> [Tao]: Copied MKL-DNN manager’s words here:
> "That's valid request and I would expect that as the software matures
> more and more applications will rely on stable versions. I would expect that
> for MXNet there is a stable branch that would rely on stable MKL-DNN and
> development branch that would rely on master.
> MKL-DNN relies on semantic versioning. We do maintain a release
> branches in addition to master that can be used to release patches. In
> particular we are planning v0.17.1 this week to deliver a fix for reorders that
> you requested. This works in the following way:
> * master contains the latest development (typically the next release)
> * rls-v0.17 contains v0.17 and will be used to create minor releases
> (v0.17.1 and so on)"
> I’m happy to see that MKL-DNN will have a patch release for the LSTM
> regression issue.
>
> -tao
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hagay Lupesko [mailto:lupesko@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 4:22 PM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
>
> Hey all,
>
> I'm also supportive of making MKLDNN the default build for MXNet, but
> there were a few questions asked in the thread that I am not sure were
> answered.
> Would be great if Alex and others who worked on MKLDNN and that are
> proposing it to be the default can answer them clearly:
> - What the story is like when there's no AVX instructions present on CPUs.
> Do we get an illegal instruction error, or does it fallback gracefully?
> (asked by Kellen)
> - Are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? (asked by
> Naveen)
> - MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit or
> releases? If not we should move to releases before we make it a default
> (Naveen)
> There was a discussion about MKLDNN version used by MXNet, and
> would be great if it can be summarized.
>
> Hagay
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:21 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Anirudh, please find the statements from MKL-DNN manager for the
> > versioning mechanism of MKL-DNN library as below:
> >
> > "That's valid request and I would expect that as the software matures
> > more and more applications will rely on stable versions. I would
> > expect that for MXNet there is a stable branch that would rely on
> > stable MKL-DNN and development branch that would rely on master.
> >
> > MKL-DNN relies on semantic versioning. We do maintain a release
> > branches in addition to master that can be used to release patches. In
> > particular we are planning v0.17.1 this week to deliver a fix for
> > reorders that you requested. This works in the following way:
> > * master contains the latest development (typically the next release)
> > * rls-v0.17 contains v0.17 and will be used to create minor releases
> > (v0.17.1 and so on)"
> >
> > I also restate my initial concern here: If the master (development)
> > branch of MXNet relies on a bleeding edge commit from MKL-DNN
> master
> > branch, when MXNet comes to release, we need revert many changes in
> > MXNet if MKL-DNN will not have a new release at that time, since we
> > need fallback the dependency to a previous release version. That might
> > mess up or slow down the development and release of MXNet. To avoid
> > that, we always need negotiate with MKL-DNN team for the release
> pace before every release.
> >
> > If you have any other questions about MKL-DNN's versioning, feel free
> > to let me know. If you want to change and re-define the dependency
> > behavior of MKL-DNN, please propose a solution for my concern and
> start a vote for that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -tao
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anirudh Subramanian [mailto:anirudh2290@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 8:26 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> >
> > Hi Tao,
> >
> > I was suggesting we can start using a release tag from mkldnn for
> > major and minor releases of mxnet starting with 1.4.0. But this would
> > require a versioning mechanism similar to semver for MKLDNN and
> > MKLDNN to do patch release to backport the bug fixes/regressions. I
> > dont know if this is going to happen anytime soon (It would be nice if
> > you can obtain some timeline from MKLDNN team on this). As long as
> the
> > PIP still has two different packages for mkl and without mkl my vote is +1
> for adding it as a default.
> >
> > Anirudh
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:04 AM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Anirudh,
> > >
> > > Just to confirm, you're focusing on the 1.4.0 release of MXNet and
> > > want to have a release version of MKL-DNN there, right? Or do you
> > > mean all the development in the future should base on the release
> > > version of
> > MKL-DNN?
> > > For the former one, I think 0.17 release of MKL-DNN is a good choice.
> > > But it will not have fix for the LSTM regression mentioned in
> > > previous
> > email.
> > >
> > > I'm talking about the versioning mechanism with MKL-DNN maintainers
> > > and will be back to you if I get any response. But from the
> > > releasing history of MKL-DNN, I cannot find any evidence about patch
> release.
> > >
> > > -tao
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Anirudh Subramanian [mailto:anirudh2290@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:16 AM
> > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > >
> > > Hi Tao,
> > >
> > > I agree with Steffen that we can start with a stable release for
> > > MKLDNN for 1.4.0. For your suggestion on using 0.17, can you provide
> > > info on what versioning mechanism MKLDNN uses. Once a MKLDNN
> release
> > > is out and there are some regressions found like the LSTM
> > > regression, would it be possible to do a patch release for it or
> > > maintain a release
> > branch for it ?
> > >
> > > Anirudh
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:03 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Steffen,
> > > >
> > > > I think all the commits on MKL-DNN master branch are well tested
> > > > for MKL-DNN development team. If we really want to have a release
> > > > commit in the coming 1.4 mxnet release, my suggestion is 0.17 MKL-
> DNN release.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Tao
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:09 AM, Steffen Rochel
> > > > > <st...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 to make MKL-DNN default.
> > > > > I'm tracking
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369
> > > > > as open issue to be addressed for 1.4.0 I do agree that we
> > > > > should move to a model to include released
> > > > dependencies
> > > > > instead of just taking bleeding edge snapshots.
> > > > > However, speed of development is important as well.
> > > > > As a compromise for 1.4.0 release with MKL-DNN: can the MKL-
> DNN
> > > > development
> > > > > team provide us with a well tested tag/commit id to include in
> > > > > 1.4.0 release?
> > > > > Steffen
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks for the information, Kellen and Naveen.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Better than onnx-tensorrt, MKL-DNN has already provided
> > > > >> versioning and release tags. My concern is that as MKL-DNN is
> > > > >> still under intensive development, if it has a new feature or
> > > > >> bug fix on its master branch,
> > > > do we
> > > > >> really want to wait for next release to get it supported in MXNet?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Take the LSTM regression as an example, probably MKL-DNN will
> > > > >> give a fix or improvement on its master branch soon, do we need
> > > > >> to wait for 0.18 release to get it fixed for mxnet user? AFAIK,
> > > > >> tensorflow is also using normal commit id, not release, as the
> > > > >> dependency for
> > > MKL-DNN.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regarding the LSTM regression, we are using internal JIRA
> > > > >> tickets rather than github issues to track the defects of
> > > > >> MKL-DNN. But I agree with
> > > > you,
> > > > >> we need update the progress of it in Alex's issue.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> -tao
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
> > > > >> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:55 AM
> > > > >> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > > >> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Agree with your point about other repos also not being based on
> > > > versioning
> > > > >> Tao. I would point out that I've given some that I've worked
> > > > >> with
> > > > similar
> > > > >> feedback: https://github.com/onnx/onnx-tensorrt/issues/68
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM Naveen Swamy
> > > > >>> <mn...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Tao,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have
> > > > >>> to start somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate
> > > > >>> to start
> > > with.
> > > > >>> This is not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with
> > > > >>> the releases of the submodules but instead to pick only stable
> > > > >>> releases and not to pick up bleeding edge commits from the tip
> > > > >>> of the master, this gives us confidence in the submodule that
> > > > >>> MXNet users are depending on that especially if we make
> MKLDNN
> > > > >>> the
> > default.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has
> > > > >>> created this issue
> > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369,
> > > > >>> please add details and link the corresponding issue in
> > > > >>> MKLDNN(I couldn't
> > > > find).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> -Naveen
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A
> > > > >>>> <ta...@intel.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen
> > > > >>>> about MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making
> > > > >>>> MKL-DNN default here.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> @Kellen,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially
> > > > >>>> supported by MKL-DNN.
> > > > >>>> https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed.
> > > > >>>> So they are supposed to generate code according to the
> > > > >>>> platform during runtime. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as
> > > > >>>> other code in MXNet, it will generate instructions according
> > > > >>>> to the options/flags of compiler. We can set -
> DARCH_OPT_FLAGS
> > > > >>>> when build MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling
> machine.
> > > > >>>> That's exactly what we are doing
> > > > >> for MKL-DNN build in MXNet.
> > > > >>> Even
> > > > >>>> without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal
> > > > >>>> instructions
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>> MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end
> > > > >>>> machine which probably only supports SSE.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> @Naveen,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression
> > > > >>>> from the
> > > > >>> recent
> > > > >>>> version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a
> > > > >>>> new update of MKL-DNN.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party
> folder.
> > > > >>>> Seems
> > > > >>> we
> > > > >>>> don't require release versions for most of these dependencies.
> > > > >>>> The
> > > > >>> release
> > > > >>>> period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I
> > > > >>>> think it would
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>>> a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release
> > > > >>>> of a submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all
> > submodules.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> -tao
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>> From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
> > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
> > > > >>>> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > > >>>> Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Hi Alex,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting
> here.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+I
> > > > >>> nt
> > > > >>> el
> > > > >>> +MKL
> > > > >>> -DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
> > > > >>>> ?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled?
> from
> > > > >>>> my offline conversation I am briefly aware performance issues
> > > > >>>> with LSTM, is there an GitHub issue for it?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest
> > > > >>>> commit or releases ? If not we should move to releases
> > > > >>>> before we make it a
> > > > >>> default.
> > > > >>>> Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev
> > > > >>>> packages) at least we should rely on well tested releases.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks, Naveen
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
> > > > >>> <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8
> > > > >>>>> speedup with
> > > > >>>>> Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine.
> > > > >>>>> With a smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the
> > > > >>>>> speedup is more significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to
> > > > >>>>> see if the PR to have MKLDNN enabled by default
> > > > >>>>> (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can
> > > > >>>>> be merged before 1.4.0 release.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy"
> > > > >>>>> <pe...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD
> > > > >>>>> Ryzen 1950X and unit
> > > > >>>>> tests are passing.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx"
> > > > >>> flag.
> > > > >>>>> There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Pedro.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko
> > > > >>>>> <lu...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
> > > > >>>> companies!
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this
> > > > >>>>> boost "out of the
> > > > >>>>>> box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better
> choice.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides
> > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>> regards to
> > > > >>>>>> noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it
> > > > >>>>> gracefully fallback?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hagay
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández
> > > > >>>>> <wi...@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> > > > >>>>> instructions,
> > > > >>>>>>> then +1
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Hey all,
> > > > >>>>>>>> We have been working hard these past few months to
> > > > >>>>> integrate
> > > > >>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>> stabilize
> > > > >>>>>>>> Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet
> > > > >>>>> and have made
> > > > >>>>>>>> incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions
> > > > >>>>> (such as
> > > > >>>>> c5.18x)
> > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>> have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> > > > >>>>> platforms (Macs,
> > > > >>>>>>>> AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks
> > > > >>>>> can be found
> > > > >>>>>>> here
> > > > >>>>>>>> (
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?page
> > > > >>> Id
> > > > >>> =9
> > > > >>> 5650
> > > > >>> 764
> > > > >>>>>>>> and https://github.com/apache/incubator-
> mxnet/pull/12591
> > > > >> ).
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer
> > > > >>>>> to either pip
> > > > >>>>>>>> install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> > > > >>>>> themselves from
> > > > >>>>>>>> source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> > > > >>>>> performance "out
> > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>> the box” with mxnet we should include this in the
> > > > >>>>> default
> > > > >>>> build.
> > > > >>>>> The
> > > > >>>>>>> mkldnn
> > > > >>>>>>>> library is included with in the pip package build so it
> > > > >>>>> does
> > > > >>>> not
> > > > >>>>>> require
> > > > >>>>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>> external dependency.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause
> regressions
> > > > >>>>> on certain
> > > > >>>>>>>> platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> > > > >>>>> back); but we
> > > > >>>>>>>> added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows
> > > > >>>>> users to turn of
> > > > >>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>> feature during runtime. Please bring up any other
> > > > >>>>> concerns you may have
> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>> your thoughts on including this accelerator in the
> > > > >>>>> default
> > > > >>>> build.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by "Zai, Alexander" <al...@amazon.com.INVALID>.
Thanks for answering Tao. I would like to add that we have the env flag that disables MKLDNN operators if regression occurs.
On 11/28/18, 6:05 AM, "Lv, Tao A" <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
Hi Hagay, thank you for bringing these questions together. I also summarized my opinions here for you easy to check.
- Make MKL-DNN default in MXNet pip package
[Tao]: My suggestion is to make MKL-DNN default on the master branch firstly after 1.4.0 releasing branch is cut off. That will help MKL-DNN backend to be widely used and tested by MXNet users who are building MXNet from source. It will also help to expose issues of MKL-DNN backend in the next releasing cycle. We can decide whether to make it default in pip package for 1.5.0 release according to the feedback from the community. For 1.4.0 release, we can still have MKL-DNN in the mxnet-mkl package.
- What the story is like when there's no AVX instructions present on CPUs. Do we get an illegal instruction error, or does it fallback gracefully?
[Tao]: MKL-DNN has optimizations for every ISA starting with SSE4.2 and there is a list for those platforms which are officially supported by MKL-DNN: https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements. It should fallback if AVX is not supported. Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So they are supposed to generate code according to the platform during runtime and should not have any illegal instruction. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code in MXNet, it will generate instructions according to the options/flags of compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when build MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling machine. That's exactly what we are doing for MKL-DNN build in MXNet. Even without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal instructions of MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine which probably only supports SSE.
- Are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled?
[Tao]: I don’t know any at this time except the LSTM regression which hopefully will be fixed soon. I notice the fix has been pushed to MKL-DNN master branch. But if we decide to depend on release version only, we need wait for the release process of MKL-DNN finishing. If anyone knows other issues about MKL-DNN backend, feel free to let me know. :)
- MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit or releases? If not we should move to releases before we make it a default
[Tao]: I don't have strong resistance to release version. But if you want to make a rule for MXNet that a submodule should depend on a release version, please take all the submodules into consideration. For MKL-DNN, my concern is: If the master (development) branch of MXNet relies on a bleeding edge commit from MKL-DNN master branch, when MXNet comes to release, we need revert many changes in MXNet if MKL-DNN will not have a new release at that time, since we need fallback the dependency to a previous release version. That might mess up or slow down the development and release of MXNet. To avoid that, we always need negotiate with MKL-DNN team for the release pace before every release. Please propose a solution for this situation and make a plan how to apply it to all submodules.
- MKLDNN versioning mechanism
[Tao]: Copied MKL-DNN manager’s words here:
"That's valid request and I would expect that as the software matures more and more applications will rely on stable versions. I would expect that for MXNet there is a stable branch that would rely on stable MKL-DNN and development branch that would rely on master.
MKL-DNN relies on semantic versioning. We do maintain a release branches in addition to master that can be used to release patches. In particular we are planning v0.17.1 this week to deliver a fix for reorders that you requested. This works in the following way:
* master contains the latest development (typically the next release)
* rls-v0.17 contains v0.17 and will be used to create minor releases (v0.17.1 and so on)"
I’m happy to see that MKL-DNN will have a patch release for the LSTM regression issue.
-tao
-----Original Message-----
From: Hagay Lupesko [mailto:lupesko@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 4:22 PM
To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Hey all,
I'm also supportive of making MKLDNN the default build for MXNet, but there were a few questions asked in the thread that I am not sure were answered.
Would be great if Alex and others who worked on MKLDNN and that are proposing it to be the default can answer them clearly:
- What the story is like when there's no AVX instructions present on CPUs.
Do we get an illegal instruction error, or does it fallback gracefully?
(asked by Kellen)
- Are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? (asked by Naveen)
- MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit or releases? If not we should move to releases before we make it a default
(Naveen)
There was a discussion about MKLDNN version used by MXNet, and would be great if it can be summarized.
Hagay
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:21 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Anirudh, please find the statements from MKL-DNN manager for the
> versioning mechanism of MKL-DNN library as below:
>
> "That's valid request and I would expect that as the software matures
> more and more applications will rely on stable versions. I would
> expect that for MXNet there is a stable branch that would rely on
> stable MKL-DNN and development branch that would rely on master.
>
> MKL-DNN relies on semantic versioning. We do maintain a release
> branches in addition to master that can be used to release patches. In
> particular we are planning v0.17.1 this week to deliver a fix for
> reorders that you requested. This works in the following way:
> * master contains the latest development (typically the next release)
> * rls-v0.17 contains v0.17 and will be used to create minor releases
> (v0.17.1 and so on)"
>
> I also restate my initial concern here: If the master (development)
> branch of MXNet relies on a bleeding edge commit from MKL-DNN master
> branch, when MXNet comes to release, we need revert many changes in
> MXNet if MKL-DNN will not have a new release at that time, since we
> need fallback the dependency to a previous release version. That might
> mess up or slow down the development and release of MXNet. To avoid
> that, we always need negotiate with MKL-DNN team for the release pace before every release.
>
> If you have any other questions about MKL-DNN's versioning, feel free
> to let me know. If you want to change and re-define the dependency
> behavior of MKL-DNN, please propose a solution for my concern and start a vote for that.
>
> Thanks,
> -tao
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anirudh Subramanian [mailto:anirudh2290@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 8:26 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
>
> Hi Tao,
>
> I was suggesting we can start using a release tag from mkldnn for
> major and minor releases of mxnet starting with 1.4.0. But this would
> require a versioning mechanism similar to semver for MKLDNN and
> MKLDNN to do patch release to backport the bug fixes/regressions. I
> dont know if this is going to happen anytime soon (It would be nice if
> you can obtain some timeline from MKLDNN team on this). As long as the
> PIP still has two different packages for mkl and without mkl my vote is +1 for adding it as a default.
>
> Anirudh
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:04 AM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Anirudh,
> >
> > Just to confirm, you're focusing on the 1.4.0 release of MXNet and
> > want to have a release version of MKL-DNN there, right? Or do you
> > mean all the development in the future should base on the release
> > version of
> MKL-DNN?
> > For the former one, I think 0.17 release of MKL-DNN is a good choice.
> > But it will not have fix for the LSTM regression mentioned in
> > previous
> email.
> >
> > I'm talking about the versioning mechanism with MKL-DNN maintainers
> > and will be back to you if I get any response. But from the
> > releasing history of MKL-DNN, I cannot find any evidence about patch release.
> >
> > -tao
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anirudh Subramanian [mailto:anirudh2290@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:16 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> >
> > Hi Tao,
> >
> > I agree with Steffen that we can start with a stable release for
> > MKLDNN for 1.4.0. For your suggestion on using 0.17, can you provide
> > info on what versioning mechanism MKLDNN uses. Once a MKLDNN release
> > is out and there are some regressions found like the LSTM
> > regression, would it be possible to do a patch release for it or
> > maintain a release
> branch for it ?
> >
> > Anirudh
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:03 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Steffen,
> > >
> > > I think all the commits on MKL-DNN master branch are well tested
> > > for MKL-DNN development team. If we really want to have a release
> > > commit in the coming 1.4 mxnet release, my suggestion is 0.17 MKL-DNN release.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Tao
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:09 AM, Steffen Rochel
> > > > <st...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 to make MKL-DNN default.
> > > > I'm tracking
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369
> > > > as open issue to be addressed for 1.4.0 I do agree that we
> > > > should move to a model to include released
> > > dependencies
> > > > instead of just taking bleeding edge snapshots.
> > > > However, speed of development is important as well.
> > > > As a compromise for 1.4.0 release with MKL-DNN: can the MKL-DNN
> > > development
> > > > team provide us with a well tested tag/commit id to include in
> > > > 1.4.0 release?
> > > > Steffen
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for the information, Kellen and Naveen.
> > > >>
> > > >> Better than onnx-tensorrt, MKL-DNN has already provided
> > > >> versioning and release tags. My concern is that as MKL-DNN is
> > > >> still under intensive development, if it has a new feature or
> > > >> bug fix on its master branch,
> > > do we
> > > >> really want to wait for next release to get it supported in MXNet?
> > > >>
> > > >> Take the LSTM regression as an example, probably MKL-DNN will
> > > >> give a fix or improvement on its master branch soon, do we need
> > > >> to wait for 0.18 release to get it fixed for mxnet user? AFAIK,
> > > >> tensorflow is also using normal commit id, not release, as the
> > > >> dependency for
> > MKL-DNN.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regarding the LSTM regression, we are using internal JIRA
> > > >> tickets rather than github issues to track the defects of
> > > >> MKL-DNN. But I agree with
> > > you,
> > > >> we need update the progress of it in Alex's issue.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> -tao
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:55 AM
> > > >> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > > >>
> > > >> Agree with your point about other repos also not being based on
> > > versioning
> > > >> Tao. I would point out that I've given some that I've worked
> > > >> with
> > > similar
> > > >> feedback: https://github.com/onnx/onnx-tensorrt/issues/68
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM Naveen Swamy
> > > >>> <mn...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Tao,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have
> > > >>> to start somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate
> > > >>> to start
> > with.
> > > >>> This is not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with
> > > >>> the releases of the submodules but instead to pick only stable
> > > >>> releases and not to pick up bleeding edge commits from the tip
> > > >>> of the master, this gives us confidence in the submodule that
> > > >>> MXNet users are depending on that especially if we make MKLDNN
> > > >>> the
> default.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has
> > > >>> created this issue
> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369,
> > > >>> please add details and link the corresponding issue in
> > > >>> MKLDNN(I couldn't
> > > find).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Naveen
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A
> > > >>>> <ta...@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen
> > > >>>> about MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making
> > > >>>> MKL-DNN default here.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> @Kellen,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially
> > > >>>> supported by MKL-DNN.
> > > >>>> https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed.
> > > >>>> So they are supposed to generate code according to the
> > > >>>> platform during runtime. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as
> > > >>>> other code in MXNet, it will generate instructions according
> > > >>>> to the options/flags of compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS
> > > >>>> when build MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling machine.
> > > >>>> That's exactly what we are doing
> > > >> for MKL-DNN build in MXNet.
> > > >>> Even
> > > >>>> without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal
> > > >>>> instructions
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>> MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end
> > > >>>> machine which probably only supports SSE.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> @Naveen,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression
> > > >>>> from the
> > > >>> recent
> > > >>>> version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a
> > > >>>> new update of MKL-DNN.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder.
> > > >>>> Seems
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>> don't require release versions for most of these dependencies.
> > > >>>> The
> > > >>> release
> > > >>>> period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I
> > > >>>> think it would
> > > >>> be
> > > >>>> a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release
> > > >>>> of a submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all
> submodules.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -tao
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>> From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
> > > >>>> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > >>>> Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hi Alex,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+I
> > > >>> nt
> > > >>> el
> > > >>> +MKL
> > > >>> -DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
> > > >>>> ?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from
> > > >>>> my offline conversation I am briefly aware performance issues
> > > >>>> with LSTM, is there an GitHub issue for it?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest
> > > >>>> commit or releases ? If not we should move to releases
> > > >>>> before we make it a
> > > >>> default.
> > > >>>> Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev
> > > >>>> packages) at least we should rely on well tested releases.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks, Naveen
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
> > > >>> <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8
> > > >>>>> speedup with
> > > >>>>> Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine.
> > > >>>>> With a smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the
> > > >>>>> speedup is more significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to
> > > >>>>> see if the PR to have MKLDNN enabled by default
> > > >>>>> (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can
> > > >>>>> be merged before 1.4.0 release.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy"
> > > >>>>> <pe...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD
> > > >>>>> Ryzen 1950X and unit
> > > >>>>> tests are passing.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx"
> > > >>> flag.
> > > >>>>> There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Pedro.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko
> > > >>>>> <lu...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
> > > >>>> companies!
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this
> > > >>>>> boost "out of the
> > > >>>>>> box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides
> > > >>>>>> with
> > > >>>>> regards to
> > > >>>>>> noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it
> > > >>>>> gracefully fallback?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hagay
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández
> > > >>>>> <wi...@apache.org>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> > > >>>>> instructions,
> > > >>>>>>> then +1
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Hey all,
> > > >>>>>>>> We have been working hard these past few months to
> > > >>>>> integrate
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>>>>> stabilize
> > > >>>>>>>> Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet
> > > >>>>> and have made
> > > >>>>>>>> incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions
> > > >>>>> (such as
> > > >>>>> c5.18x)
> > > >>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>> have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> > > >>>>> platforms (Macs,
> > > >>>>>>>> AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks
> > > >>>>> can be found
> > > >>>>>>> here
> > > >>>>>>>> (
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?page
> > > >>> Id
> > > >>> =9
> > > >>> 5650
> > > >>> 764
> > > >>>>>>>> and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591
> > > >> ).
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer
> > > >>>>> to either pip
> > > >>>>>>>> install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> > > >>>>> themselves from
> > > >>>>>>>> source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> > > >>>>> performance "out
> > > >>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>> the box” with mxnet we should include this in the
> > > >>>>> default
> > > >>>> build.
> > > >>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>> mkldnn
> > > >>>>>>>> library is included with in the pip package build so it
> > > >>>>> does
> > > >>>> not
> > > >>>>>> require
> > > >>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>> external dependency.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions
> > > >>>>> on certain
> > > >>>>>>>> platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> > > >>>>> back); but we
> > > >>>>>>>> added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows
> > > >>>>> users to turn of
> > > >>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>> feature during runtime. Please bring up any other
> > > >>>>> concerns you may have
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> your thoughts on including this accelerator in the
> > > >>>>> default
> > > >>>> build.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>>>> Alex
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
RE: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by "Lv, Tao A" <ta...@intel.com>.
Hi Hagay, thank you for bringing these questions together. I also summarized my opinions here for you easy to check.
- Make MKL-DNN default in MXNet pip package
[Tao]: My suggestion is to make MKL-DNN default on the master branch firstly after 1.4.0 releasing branch is cut off. That will help MKL-DNN backend to be widely used and tested by MXNet users who are building MXNet from source. It will also help to expose issues of MKL-DNN backend in the next releasing cycle. We can decide whether to make it default in pip package for 1.5.0 release according to the feedback from the community. For 1.4.0 release, we can still have MKL-DNN in the mxnet-mkl package.
- What the story is like when there's no AVX instructions present on CPUs. Do we get an illegal instruction error, or does it fallback gracefully?
[Tao]: MKL-DNN has optimizations for every ISA starting with SSE4.2 and there is a list for those platforms which are officially supported by MKL-DNN: https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements. It should fallback if AVX is not supported. Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So they are supposed to generate code according to the platform during runtime and should not have any illegal instruction. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code in MXNet, it will generate instructions according to the options/flags of compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when build MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling machine. That's exactly what we are doing for MKL-DNN build in MXNet. Even without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal instructions of MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine which probably only supports SSE.
- Are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled?
[Tao]: I don’t know any at this time except the LSTM regression which hopefully will be fixed soon. I notice the fix has been pushed to MKL-DNN master branch. But if we decide to depend on release version only, we need wait for the release process of MKL-DNN finishing. If anyone knows other issues about MKL-DNN backend, feel free to let me know. :)
- MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit or releases? If not we should move to releases before we make it a default
[Tao]: I don't have strong resistance to release version. But if you want to make a rule for MXNet that a submodule should depend on a release version, please take all the submodules into consideration. For MKL-DNN, my concern is: If the master (development) branch of MXNet relies on a bleeding edge commit from MKL-DNN master branch, when MXNet comes to release, we need revert many changes in MXNet if MKL-DNN will not have a new release at that time, since we need fallback the dependency to a previous release version. That might mess up or slow down the development and release of MXNet. To avoid that, we always need negotiate with MKL-DNN team for the release pace before every release. Please propose a solution for this situation and make a plan how to apply it to all submodules.
- MKLDNN versioning mechanism
[Tao]: Copied MKL-DNN manager’s words here:
"That's valid request and I would expect that as the software matures more and more applications will rely on stable versions. I would expect that for MXNet there is a stable branch that would rely on stable MKL-DNN and development branch that would rely on master.
MKL-DNN relies on semantic versioning. We do maintain a release branches in addition to master that can be used to release patches. In particular we are planning v0.17.1 this week to deliver a fix for reorders that you requested. This works in the following way:
* master contains the latest development (typically the next release)
* rls-v0.17 contains v0.17 and will be used to create minor releases (v0.17.1 and so on)"
I’m happy to see that MKL-DNN will have a patch release for the LSTM regression issue.
-tao
-----Original Message-----
From: Hagay Lupesko [mailto:lupesko@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 4:22 PM
To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Hey all,
I'm also supportive of making MKLDNN the default build for MXNet, but there were a few questions asked in the thread that I am not sure were answered.
Would be great if Alex and others who worked on MKLDNN and that are proposing it to be the default can answer them clearly:
- What the story is like when there's no AVX instructions present on CPUs.
Do we get an illegal instruction error, or does it fallback gracefully?
(asked by Kellen)
- Are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? (asked by Naveen)
- MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit or releases? If not we should move to releases before we make it a default
(Naveen)
There was a discussion about MKLDNN version used by MXNet, and would be great if it can be summarized.
Hagay
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:21 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Anirudh, please find the statements from MKL-DNN manager for the
> versioning mechanism of MKL-DNN library as below:
>
> "That's valid request and I would expect that as the software matures
> more and more applications will rely on stable versions. I would
> expect that for MXNet there is a stable branch that would rely on
> stable MKL-DNN and development branch that would rely on master.
>
> MKL-DNN relies on semantic versioning. We do maintain a release
> branches in addition to master that can be used to release patches. In
> particular we are planning v0.17.1 this week to deliver a fix for
> reorders that you requested. This works in the following way:
> * master contains the latest development (typically the next release)
> * rls-v0.17 contains v0.17 and will be used to create minor releases
> (v0.17.1 and so on)"
>
> I also restate my initial concern here: If the master (development)
> branch of MXNet relies on a bleeding edge commit from MKL-DNN master
> branch, when MXNet comes to release, we need revert many changes in
> MXNet if MKL-DNN will not have a new release at that time, since we
> need fallback the dependency to a previous release version. That might
> mess up or slow down the development and release of MXNet. To avoid
> that, we always need negotiate with MKL-DNN team for the release pace before every release.
>
> If you have any other questions about MKL-DNN's versioning, feel free
> to let me know. If you want to change and re-define the dependency
> behavior of MKL-DNN, please propose a solution for my concern and start a vote for that.
>
> Thanks,
> -tao
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anirudh Subramanian [mailto:anirudh2290@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 8:26 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
>
> Hi Tao,
>
> I was suggesting we can start using a release tag from mkldnn for
> major and minor releases of mxnet starting with 1.4.0. But this would
> require a versioning mechanism similar to semver for MKLDNN and
> MKLDNN to do patch release to backport the bug fixes/regressions. I
> dont know if this is going to happen anytime soon (It would be nice if
> you can obtain some timeline from MKLDNN team on this). As long as the
> PIP still has two different packages for mkl and without mkl my vote is +1 for adding it as a default.
>
> Anirudh
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:04 AM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Anirudh,
> >
> > Just to confirm, you're focusing on the 1.4.0 release of MXNet and
> > want to have a release version of MKL-DNN there, right? Or do you
> > mean all the development in the future should base on the release
> > version of
> MKL-DNN?
> > For the former one, I think 0.17 release of MKL-DNN is a good choice.
> > But it will not have fix for the LSTM regression mentioned in
> > previous
> email.
> >
> > I'm talking about the versioning mechanism with MKL-DNN maintainers
> > and will be back to you if I get any response. But from the
> > releasing history of MKL-DNN, I cannot find any evidence about patch release.
> >
> > -tao
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anirudh Subramanian [mailto:anirudh2290@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:16 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> >
> > Hi Tao,
> >
> > I agree with Steffen that we can start with a stable release for
> > MKLDNN for 1.4.0. For your suggestion on using 0.17, can you provide
> > info on what versioning mechanism MKLDNN uses. Once a MKLDNN release
> > is out and there are some regressions found like the LSTM
> > regression, would it be possible to do a patch release for it or
> > maintain a release
> branch for it ?
> >
> > Anirudh
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:03 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Steffen,
> > >
> > > I think all the commits on MKL-DNN master branch are well tested
> > > for MKL-DNN development team. If we really want to have a release
> > > commit in the coming 1.4 mxnet release, my suggestion is 0.17 MKL-DNN release.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Tao
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:09 AM, Steffen Rochel
> > > > <st...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 to make MKL-DNN default.
> > > > I'm tracking
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369
> > > > as open issue to be addressed for 1.4.0 I do agree that we
> > > > should move to a model to include released
> > > dependencies
> > > > instead of just taking bleeding edge snapshots.
> > > > However, speed of development is important as well.
> > > > As a compromise for 1.4.0 release with MKL-DNN: can the MKL-DNN
> > > development
> > > > team provide us with a well tested tag/commit id to include in
> > > > 1.4.0 release?
> > > > Steffen
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for the information, Kellen and Naveen.
> > > >>
> > > >> Better than onnx-tensorrt, MKL-DNN has already provided
> > > >> versioning and release tags. My concern is that as MKL-DNN is
> > > >> still under intensive development, if it has a new feature or
> > > >> bug fix on its master branch,
> > > do we
> > > >> really want to wait for next release to get it supported in MXNet?
> > > >>
> > > >> Take the LSTM regression as an example, probably MKL-DNN will
> > > >> give a fix or improvement on its master branch soon, do we need
> > > >> to wait for 0.18 release to get it fixed for mxnet user? AFAIK,
> > > >> tensorflow is also using normal commit id, not release, as the
> > > >> dependency for
> > MKL-DNN.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regarding the LSTM regression, we are using internal JIRA
> > > >> tickets rather than github issues to track the defects of
> > > >> MKL-DNN. But I agree with
> > > you,
> > > >> we need update the progress of it in Alex's issue.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> -tao
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:55 AM
> > > >> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > > >>
> > > >> Agree with your point about other repos also not being based on
> > > versioning
> > > >> Tao. I would point out that I've given some that I've worked
> > > >> with
> > > similar
> > > >> feedback: https://github.com/onnx/onnx-tensorrt/issues/68
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM Naveen Swamy
> > > >>> <mn...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Tao,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have
> > > >>> to start somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate
> > > >>> to start
> > with.
> > > >>> This is not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with
> > > >>> the releases of the submodules but instead to pick only stable
> > > >>> releases and not to pick up bleeding edge commits from the tip
> > > >>> of the master, this gives us confidence in the submodule that
> > > >>> MXNet users are depending on that especially if we make MKLDNN
> > > >>> the
> default.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has
> > > >>> created this issue
> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369,
> > > >>> please add details and link the corresponding issue in
> > > >>> MKLDNN(I couldn't
> > > find).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Naveen
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A
> > > >>>> <ta...@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen
> > > >>>> about MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making
> > > >>>> MKL-DNN default here.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> @Kellen,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially
> > > >>>> supported by MKL-DNN.
> > > >>>> https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed.
> > > >>>> So they are supposed to generate code according to the
> > > >>>> platform during runtime. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as
> > > >>>> other code in MXNet, it will generate instructions according
> > > >>>> to the options/flags of compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS
> > > >>>> when build MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling machine.
> > > >>>> That's exactly what we are doing
> > > >> for MKL-DNN build in MXNet.
> > > >>> Even
> > > >>>> without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal
> > > >>>> instructions
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>> MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end
> > > >>>> machine which probably only supports SSE.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> @Naveen,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression
> > > >>>> from the
> > > >>> recent
> > > >>>> version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a
> > > >>>> new update of MKL-DNN.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder.
> > > >>>> Seems
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>> don't require release versions for most of these dependencies.
> > > >>>> The
> > > >>> release
> > > >>>> period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I
> > > >>>> think it would
> > > >>> be
> > > >>>> a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release
> > > >>>> of a submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all
> submodules.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -tao
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>> From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
> > > >>>> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > >>>> Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hi Alex,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+I
> > > >>> nt
> > > >>> el
> > > >>> +MKL
> > > >>> -DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
> > > >>>> ?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from
> > > >>>> my offline conversation I am briefly aware performance issues
> > > >>>> with LSTM, is there an GitHub issue for it?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest
> > > >>>> commit or releases ? If not we should move to releases
> > > >>>> before we make it a
> > > >>> default.
> > > >>>> Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev
> > > >>>> packages) at least we should rely on well tested releases.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks, Naveen
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
> > > >>> <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8
> > > >>>>> speedup with
> > > >>>>> Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine.
> > > >>>>> With a smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the
> > > >>>>> speedup is more significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to
> > > >>>>> see if the PR to have MKLDNN enabled by default
> > > >>>>> (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can
> > > >>>>> be merged before 1.4.0 release.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy"
> > > >>>>> <pe...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD
> > > >>>>> Ryzen 1950X and unit
> > > >>>>> tests are passing.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx"
> > > >>> flag.
> > > >>>>> There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Pedro.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko
> > > >>>>> <lu...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
> > > >>>> companies!
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this
> > > >>>>> boost "out of the
> > > >>>>>> box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides
> > > >>>>>> with
> > > >>>>> regards to
> > > >>>>>> noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it
> > > >>>>> gracefully fallback?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hagay
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández
> > > >>>>> <wi...@apache.org>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> > > >>>>> instructions,
> > > >>>>>>> then +1
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Hey all,
> > > >>>>>>>> We have been working hard these past few months to
> > > >>>>> integrate
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>>>>> stabilize
> > > >>>>>>>> Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet
> > > >>>>> and have made
> > > >>>>>>>> incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions
> > > >>>>> (such as
> > > >>>>> c5.18x)
> > > >>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>> have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> > > >>>>> platforms (Macs,
> > > >>>>>>>> AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks
> > > >>>>> can be found
> > > >>>>>>> here
> > > >>>>>>>> (
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?page
> > > >>> Id
> > > >>> =9
> > > >>> 5650
> > > >>> 764
> > > >>>>>>>> and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591
> > > >> ).
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer
> > > >>>>> to either pip
> > > >>>>>>>> install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> > > >>>>> themselves from
> > > >>>>>>>> source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> > > >>>>> performance "out
> > > >>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>> the box” with mxnet we should include this in the
> > > >>>>> default
> > > >>>> build.
> > > >>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>> mkldnn
> > > >>>>>>>> library is included with in the pip package build so it
> > > >>>>> does
> > > >>>> not
> > > >>>>>> require
> > > >>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>> external dependency.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions
> > > >>>>> on certain
> > > >>>>>>>> platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> > > >>>>> back); but we
> > > >>>>>>>> added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows
> > > >>>>> users to turn of
> > > >>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>> feature during runtime. Please bring up any other
> > > >>>>> concerns you may have
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> your thoughts on including this accelerator in the
> > > >>>>> default
> > > >>>> build.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>>>> Alex
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by Hagay Lupesko <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hey all,
I'm also supportive of making MKLDNN the default build for MXNet, but there
were a few questions asked in the thread that I am not sure were answered.
Would be great if Alex and others who worked on MKLDNN and that are
proposing it to be the default can answer them clearly:
- What the story is like when there's no AVX instructions present on CPUs.
Do we get an illegal instruction error, or does it fallback gracefully?
(asked by Kellen)
- Are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? (asked by Naveen)
- MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit or
releases? If not we should move to releases before we make it a default
(Naveen)
There was a discussion about MKLDNN version used by MXNet, and would be
great if it can be summarized.
Hagay
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:21 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Anirudh, please find the statements from MKL-DNN manager for the
> versioning mechanism of MKL-DNN library as below:
>
> "That's valid request and I would expect that as the software matures more
> and more applications will rely on stable versions. I would expect that for
> MXNet there is a stable branch that would rely on stable MKL-DNN and
> development branch that would rely on master.
>
> MKL-DNN relies on semantic versioning. We do maintain a release branches
> in addition to master that can be used to release patches. In particular we
> are planning v0.17.1 this week to deliver a fix for reorders that you
> requested. This works in the following way:
> * master contains the latest development (typically the next release)
> * rls-v0.17 contains v0.17 and will be used to create minor releases
> (v0.17.1 and so on)"
>
> I also restate my initial concern here: If the master (development) branch
> of MXNet relies on a bleeding edge commit from MKL-DNN master branch, when
> MXNet comes to release, we need revert many changes in MXNet if MKL-DNN
> will not have a new release at that time, since we need fallback the
> dependency to a previous release version. That might mess up or slow down
> the development and release of MXNet. To avoid that, we always need
> negotiate with MKL-DNN team for the release pace before every release.
>
> If you have any other questions about MKL-DNN's versioning, feel free to
> let me know. If you want to change and re-define the dependency behavior of
> MKL-DNN, please propose a solution for my concern and start a vote for that.
>
> Thanks,
> -tao
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anirudh Subramanian [mailto:anirudh2290@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 8:26 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
>
> Hi Tao,
>
> I was suggesting we can start using a release tag from mkldnn for major
> and minor releases of mxnet starting with 1.4.0. But this would require a
> versioning mechanism similar to semver for MKLDNN and MKLDNN to do patch
> release to backport the bug fixes/regressions. I dont know if this is going
> to happen anytime soon (It would be nice if you can obtain some timeline
> from MKLDNN team on this). As long as the PIP still has two different
> packages for mkl and without mkl my vote is +1 for adding it as a default.
>
> Anirudh
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:04 AM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Anirudh,
> >
> > Just to confirm, you're focusing on the 1.4.0 release of MXNet and
> > want to have a release version of MKL-DNN there, right? Or do you mean
> > all the development in the future should base on the release version of
> MKL-DNN?
> > For the former one, I think 0.17 release of MKL-DNN is a good choice.
> > But it will not have fix for the LSTM regression mentioned in previous
> email.
> >
> > I'm talking about the versioning mechanism with MKL-DNN maintainers
> > and will be back to you if I get any response. But from the releasing
> > history of MKL-DNN, I cannot find any evidence about patch release.
> >
> > -tao
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anirudh Subramanian [mailto:anirudh2290@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:16 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> >
> > Hi Tao,
> >
> > I agree with Steffen that we can start with a stable release for
> > MKLDNN for 1.4.0. For your suggestion on using 0.17, can you provide
> > info on what versioning mechanism MKLDNN uses. Once a MKLDNN release
> > is out and there are some regressions found like the LSTM regression,
> > would it be possible to do a patch release for it or maintain a release
> branch for it ?
> >
> > Anirudh
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:03 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Steffen,
> > >
> > > I think all the commits on MKL-DNN master branch are well tested for
> > > MKL-DNN development team. If we really want to have a release commit
> > > in the coming 1.4 mxnet release, my suggestion is 0.17 MKL-DNN release.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Tao
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:09 AM, Steffen Rochel
> > > > <st...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 to make MKL-DNN default.
> > > > I'm tracking
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369
> > > > as open issue to be addressed for 1.4.0 I do agree that we should
> > > > move to a model to include released
> > > dependencies
> > > > instead of just taking bleeding edge snapshots.
> > > > However, speed of development is important as well.
> > > > As a compromise for 1.4.0 release with MKL-DNN: can the MKL-DNN
> > > development
> > > > team provide us with a well tested tag/commit id to include in
> > > > 1.4.0 release?
> > > > Steffen
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for the information, Kellen and Naveen.
> > > >>
> > > >> Better than onnx-tensorrt, MKL-DNN has already provided
> > > >> versioning and release tags. My concern is that as MKL-DNN is
> > > >> still under intensive development, if it has a new feature or bug
> > > >> fix on its master branch,
> > > do we
> > > >> really want to wait for next release to get it supported in MXNet?
> > > >>
> > > >> Take the LSTM regression as an example, probably MKL-DNN will
> > > >> give a fix or improvement on its master branch soon, do we need
> > > >> to wait for 0.18 release to get it fixed for mxnet user? AFAIK,
> > > >> tensorflow is also using normal commit id, not release, as the
> > > >> dependency for
> > MKL-DNN.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regarding the LSTM regression, we are using internal JIRA tickets
> > > >> rather than github issues to track the defects of MKL-DNN. But I
> > > >> agree with
> > > you,
> > > >> we need update the progress of it in Alex's issue.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> -tao
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:55 AM
> > > >> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > > >>
> > > >> Agree with your point about other repos also not being based on
> > > versioning
> > > >> Tao. I would point out that I've given some that I've worked
> > > >> with
> > > similar
> > > >> feedback: https://github.com/onnx/onnx-tensorrt/issues/68
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM Naveen Swamy
> > > >>> <mn...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Tao,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have to
> > > >>> start somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate to
> > > >>> start
> > with.
> > > >>> This is not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with the
> > > >>> releases of the submodules but instead to pick only stable
> > > >>> releases and not to pick up bleeding edge commits from the tip
> > > >>> of the master, this gives us confidence in the submodule that
> > > >>> MXNet users are depending on that especially if we make MKLDNN the
> default.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has
> > > >>> created this issue
> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369,
> > > >>> please add details and link the corresponding issue in MKLDNN(I
> > > >>> couldn't
> > > find).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Naveen
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen
> > > >>>> about MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making
> > > >>>> MKL-DNN default here.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> @Kellen,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially
> > > >>>> supported by MKL-DNN.
> > > >>>> https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So
> > > >>>> they are supposed to generate code according to the platform
> > > >>>> during runtime. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code
> > > >>>> in MXNet, it will generate instructions according to the
> > > >>>> options/flags of compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when
> > > >>>> build MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling machine.
> > > >>>> That's exactly what we are doing
> > > >> for MKL-DNN build in MXNet.
> > > >>> Even
> > > >>>> without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal
> > > >>>> instructions
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>> MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine
> > > >>>> which probably only supports SSE.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> @Naveen,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression from
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>> recent
> > > >>>> version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a new
> > > >>>> update of MKL-DNN.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder.
> > > >>>> Seems
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>> don't require release versions for most of these dependencies.
> > > >>>> The
> > > >>> release
> > > >>>> period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I think
> > > >>>> it would
> > > >>> be
> > > >>>> a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release of
> > > >>>> a submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all
> submodules.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -tao
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>> From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
> > > >>>> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > >>>> Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hi Alex,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+Int
> > > >>> el
> > > >>> +MKL
> > > >>> -DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
> > > >>>> ?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from
> > > >>>> my offline conversation I am briefly aware performance issues
> > > >>>> with LSTM, is there an GitHub issue for it?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest
> > > >>>> commit or releases ? If not we should move to releases before
> > > >>>> we make it a
> > > >>> default.
> > > >>>> Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev
> > > >>>> packages) at least we should rely on well tested releases.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks, Naveen
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
> > > >>> <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8
> > > >>>>> speedup with
> > > >>>>> Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine.
> > > >>>>> With a smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup
> > > >>>>> is more significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the
> > > >>>>> PR to have MKLDNN enabled by default
> > > >>>>> (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be
> > > >>>>> merged before 1.4.0 release.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy"
> > > >>>>> <pe...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD
> > > >>>>> Ryzen 1950X and unit
> > > >>>>> tests are passing.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx"
> > > >>> flag.
> > > >>>>> There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Pedro.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko
> > > >>>>> <lu...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
> > > >>>> companies!
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this
> > > >>>>> boost "out of the
> > > >>>>>> box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with
> > > >>>>> regards to
> > > >>>>>> noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it
> > > >>>>> gracefully fallback?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hagay
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández
> > > >>>>> <wi...@apache.org>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> > > >>>>> instructions,
> > > >>>>>>> then +1
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Hey all,
> > > >>>>>>>> We have been working hard these past few months to
> > > >>>>> integrate
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>>>>> stabilize
> > > >>>>>>>> Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet
> > > >>>>> and have made
> > > >>>>>>>> incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions
> > > >>>>> (such as
> > > >>>>> c5.18x)
> > > >>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>> have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> > > >>>>> platforms (Macs,
> > > >>>>>>>> AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks
> > > >>>>> can be found
> > > >>>>>>> here
> > > >>>>>>>> (
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId
> > > >>> =9
> > > >>> 5650
> > > >>> 764
> > > >>>>>>>> and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591
> > > >> ).
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer
> > > >>>>> to either pip
> > > >>>>>>>> install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> > > >>>>> themselves from
> > > >>>>>>>> source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> > > >>>>> performance "out
> > > >>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>> the box” with mxnet we should include this in the
> > > >>>>> default
> > > >>>> build.
> > > >>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>> mkldnn
> > > >>>>>>>> library is included with in the pip package build so it
> > > >>>>> does
> > > >>>> not
> > > >>>>>> require
> > > >>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>> external dependency.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions
> > > >>>>> on certain
> > > >>>>>>>> platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> > > >>>>> back); but we
> > > >>>>>>>> added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows
> > > >>>>> users to turn of
> > > >>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>> feature during runtime. Please bring up any other
> > > >>>>> concerns you may have
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> your thoughts on including this accelerator in the
> > > >>>>> default
> > > >>>> build.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>>>> Alex
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
RE: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by "Lv, Tao A" <ta...@intel.com>.
Hi Anirudh, please find the statements from MKL-DNN manager for the versioning mechanism of MKL-DNN library as below:
"That's valid request and I would expect that as the software matures more and more applications will rely on stable versions. I would expect that for MXNet there is a stable branch that would rely on stable MKL-DNN and development branch that would rely on master.
MKL-DNN relies on semantic versioning. We do maintain a release branches in addition to master that can be used to release patches. In particular we are planning v0.17.1 this week to deliver a fix for reorders that you requested. This works in the following way:
* master contains the latest development (typically the next release)
* rls-v0.17 contains v0.17 and will be used to create minor releases (v0.17.1 and so on)"
I also restate my initial concern here: If the master (development) branch of MXNet relies on a bleeding edge commit from MKL-DNN master branch, when MXNet comes to release, we need revert many changes in MXNet if MKL-DNN will not have a new release at that time, since we need fallback the dependency to a previous release version. That might mess up or slow down the development and release of MXNet. To avoid that, we always need negotiate with MKL-DNN team for the release pace before every release.
If you have any other questions about MKL-DNN's versioning, feel free to let me know. If you want to change and re-define the dependency behavior of MKL-DNN, please propose a solution for my concern and start a vote for that.
Thanks,
-tao
-----Original Message-----
From: Anirudh Subramanian [mailto:anirudh2290@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 8:26 AM
To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Hi Tao,
I was suggesting we can start using a release tag from mkldnn for major and minor releases of mxnet starting with 1.4.0. But this would require a versioning mechanism similar to semver for MKLDNN and MKLDNN to do patch release to backport the bug fixes/regressions. I dont know if this is going to happen anytime soon (It would be nice if you can obtain some timeline from MKLDNN team on this). As long as the PIP still has two different packages for mkl and without mkl my vote is +1 for adding it as a default.
Anirudh
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:04 AM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Anirudh,
>
> Just to confirm, you're focusing on the 1.4.0 release of MXNet and
> want to have a release version of MKL-DNN there, right? Or do you mean
> all the development in the future should base on the release version of MKL-DNN?
> For the former one, I think 0.17 release of MKL-DNN is a good choice.
> But it will not have fix for the LSTM regression mentioned in previous email.
>
> I'm talking about the versioning mechanism with MKL-DNN maintainers
> and will be back to you if I get any response. But from the releasing
> history of MKL-DNN, I cannot find any evidence about patch release.
>
> -tao
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anirudh Subramanian [mailto:anirudh2290@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:16 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
>
> Hi Tao,
>
> I agree with Steffen that we can start with a stable release for
> MKLDNN for 1.4.0. For your suggestion on using 0.17, can you provide
> info on what versioning mechanism MKLDNN uses. Once a MKLDNN release
> is out and there are some regressions found like the LSTM regression,
> would it be possible to do a patch release for it or maintain a release branch for it ?
>
> Anirudh
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:03 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Steffen,
> >
> > I think all the commits on MKL-DNN master branch are well tested for
> > MKL-DNN development team. If we really want to have a release commit
> > in the coming 1.4 mxnet release, my suggestion is 0.17 MKL-DNN release.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Tao
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:09 AM, Steffen Rochel
> > > <st...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 to make MKL-DNN default.
> > > I'm tracking
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369
> > > as open issue to be addressed for 1.4.0 I do agree that we should
> > > move to a model to include released
> > dependencies
> > > instead of just taking bleeding edge snapshots.
> > > However, speed of development is important as well.
> > > As a compromise for 1.4.0 release with MKL-DNN: can the MKL-DNN
> > development
> > > team provide us with a well tested tag/commit id to include in
> > > 1.4.0 release?
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the information, Kellen and Naveen.
> > >>
> > >> Better than onnx-tensorrt, MKL-DNN has already provided
> > >> versioning and release tags. My concern is that as MKL-DNN is
> > >> still under intensive development, if it has a new feature or bug
> > >> fix on its master branch,
> > do we
> > >> really want to wait for next release to get it supported in MXNet?
> > >>
> > >> Take the LSTM regression as an example, probably MKL-DNN will
> > >> give a fix or improvement on its master branch soon, do we need
> > >> to wait for 0.18 release to get it fixed for mxnet user? AFAIK,
> > >> tensorflow is also using normal commit id, not release, as the
> > >> dependency for
> MKL-DNN.
> > >>
> > >> Regarding the LSTM regression, we are using internal JIRA tickets
> > >> rather than github issues to track the defects of MKL-DNN. But I
> > >> agree with
> > you,
> > >> we need update the progress of it in Alex's issue.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> -tao
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:55 AM
> > >> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > >>
> > >> Agree with your point about other repos also not being based on
> > versioning
> > >> Tao. I would point out that I've given some that I've worked
> > >> with
> > similar
> > >> feedback: https://github.com/onnx/onnx-tensorrt/issues/68
> > >>
> > >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM Naveen Swamy
> > >>> <mn...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Tao,
> > >>>
> > >>> You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have to
> > >>> start somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate to
> > >>> start
> with.
> > >>> This is not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with the
> > >>> releases of the submodules but instead to pick only stable
> > >>> releases and not to pick up bleeding edge commits from the tip
> > >>> of the master, this gives us confidence in the submodule that
> > >>> MXNet users are depending on that especially if we make MKLDNN the default.
> > >>>
> > >>> Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has
> > >>> created this issue
> > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369,
> > >>> please add details and link the corresponding issue in MKLDNN(I
> > >>> couldn't
> > find).
> > >>>
> > >>> -Naveen
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen
> > >>>> about MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making
> > >>>> MKL-DNN default here.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> @Kellen,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially
> > >>>> supported by MKL-DNN.
> > >>>> https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So
> > >>>> they are supposed to generate code according to the platform
> > >>>> during runtime. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code
> > >>>> in MXNet, it will generate instructions according to the
> > >>>> options/flags of compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when
> > >>>> build MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling machine.
> > >>>> That's exactly what we are doing
> > >> for MKL-DNN build in MXNet.
> > >>> Even
> > >>>> without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal
> > >>>> instructions
> > >>> of
> > >>>> MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine
> > >>>> which probably only supports SSE.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> @Naveen,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression from
> > >>>> the
> > >>> recent
> > >>>> version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a new
> > >>>> update of MKL-DNN.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder.
> > >>>> Seems
> > >>> we
> > >>>> don't require release versions for most of these dependencies.
> > >>>> The
> > >>> release
> > >>>> period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I think
> > >>>> it would
> > >>> be
> > >>>> a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release of
> > >>>> a submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all submodules.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -tao
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
> > >>>> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > >>>> Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Alex,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
> > >>>>
> > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+Int
> > >>> el
> > >>> +MKL
> > >>> -DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
> > >>>> ?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from
> > >>>> my offline conversation I am briefly aware performance issues
> > >>>> with LSTM, is there an GitHub issue for it?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest
> > >>>> commit or releases ? If not we should move to releases before
> > >>>> we make it a
> > >>> default.
> > >>>> Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev
> > >>>> packages) at least we should rely on well tested releases.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks, Naveen
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
> > >>> <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8
> > >>>>> speedup with
> > >>>>> Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine.
> > >>>>> With a smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup
> > >>>>> is more significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the
> > >>>>> PR to have MKLDNN enabled by default
> > >>>>> (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be
> > >>>>> merged before 1.4.0 release.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy"
> > >>>>> <pe...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD
> > >>>>> Ryzen 1950X and unit
> > >>>>> tests are passing.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx"
> > >>> flag.
> > >>>>> There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Pedro.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko
> > >>>>> <lu...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
> > >>>> companies!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this
> > >>>>> boost "out of the
> > >>>>>> box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with
> > >>>>> regards to
> > >>>>>> noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it
> > >>>>> gracefully fallback?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hagay
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández
> > >>>>> <wi...@apache.org>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> > >>>>> instructions,
> > >>>>>>> then +1
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hey all,
> > >>>>>>>> We have been working hard these past few months to
> > >>>>> integrate
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>>>> stabilize
> > >>>>>>>> Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet
> > >>>>> and have made
> > >>>>>>>> incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions
> > >>>>> (such as
> > >>>>> c5.18x)
> > >>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>> have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> > >>>>> platforms (Macs,
> > >>>>>>>> AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks
> > >>>>> can be found
> > >>>>>>> here
> > >>>>>>>> (
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId
> > >>> =9
> > >>> 5650
> > >>> 764
> > >>>>>>>> and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591
> > >> ).
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer
> > >>>>> to either pip
> > >>>>>>>> install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> > >>>>> themselves from
> > >>>>>>>> source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> > >>>>> performance "out
> > >>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>> the box” with mxnet we should include this in the
> > >>>>> default
> > >>>> build.
> > >>>>> The
> > >>>>>>> mkldnn
> > >>>>>>>> library is included with in the pip package build so it
> > >>>>> does
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>>> require
> > >>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>> external dependency.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions
> > >>>>> on certain
> > >>>>>>>> platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> > >>>>> back); but we
> > >>>>>>>> added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows
> > >>>>> users to turn of
> > >>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>> feature during runtime. Please bring up any other
> > >>>>> concerns you may have
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> your thoughts on including this accelerator in the
> > >>>>> default
> > >>>> build.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>> Alex
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by Anirudh Subramanian <an...@gmail.com>.
Hi Tao,
I was suggesting we can start using a release tag from mkldnn for major and
minor releases of mxnet starting with 1.4.0. But this would require a
versioning mechanism similar to semver for MKLDNN and MKLDNN to do patch
release to backport the bug fixes/regressions. I dont know if this is going
to happen anytime soon (It would be nice if you can obtain some timeline
from MKLDNN team on this). As long as the PIP still has two different
packages for mkl and without mkl my vote is +1 for adding it as a default.
Anirudh
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:04 AM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Anirudh,
>
> Just to confirm, you're focusing on the 1.4.0 release of MXNet and want to
> have a release version of MKL-DNN there, right? Or do you mean all the
> development in the future should base on the release version of MKL-DNN?
> For the former one, I think 0.17 release of MKL-DNN is a good choice. But
> it will not have fix for the LSTM regression mentioned in previous email.
>
> I'm talking about the versioning mechanism with MKL-DNN maintainers and
> will be back to you if I get any response. But from the releasing history
> of MKL-DNN, I cannot find any evidence about patch release.
>
> -tao
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anirudh Subramanian [mailto:anirudh2290@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:16 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
>
> Hi Tao,
>
> I agree with Steffen that we can start with a stable release for MKLDNN
> for 1.4.0. For your suggestion on using 0.17, can you provide info on what
> versioning mechanism MKLDNN uses. Once a MKLDNN release is out and there
> are some regressions found like the LSTM regression, would it be possible
> to do a patch release for it or maintain a release branch for it ?
>
> Anirudh
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:03 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Steffen,
> >
> > I think all the commits on MKL-DNN master branch are well tested for
> > MKL-DNN development team. If we really want to have a release commit
> > in the coming 1.4 mxnet release, my suggestion is 0.17 MKL-DNN release.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Tao
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:09 AM, Steffen Rochel
> > > <st...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 to make MKL-DNN default.
> > > I'm tracking https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369
> > > as open issue to be addressed for 1.4.0 I do agree that we should
> > > move to a model to include released
> > dependencies
> > > instead of just taking bleeding edge snapshots.
> > > However, speed of development is important as well.
> > > As a compromise for 1.4.0 release with MKL-DNN: can the MKL-DNN
> > development
> > > team provide us with a well tested tag/commit id to include in 1.4.0
> > > release?
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the information, Kellen and Naveen.
> > >>
> > >> Better than onnx-tensorrt, MKL-DNN has already provided versioning
> > >> and release tags. My concern is that as MKL-DNN is still under
> > >> intensive development, if it has a new feature or bug fix on its
> > >> master branch,
> > do we
> > >> really want to wait for next release to get it supported in MXNet?
> > >>
> > >> Take the LSTM regression as an example, probably MKL-DNN will give
> > >> a fix or improvement on its master branch soon, do we need to wait
> > >> for 0.18 release to get it fixed for mxnet user? AFAIK, tensorflow
> > >> is also using normal commit id, not release, as the dependency for
> MKL-DNN.
> > >>
> > >> Regarding the LSTM regression, we are using internal JIRA tickets
> > >> rather than github issues to track the defects of MKL-DNN. But I
> > >> agree with
> > you,
> > >> we need update the progress of it in Alex's issue.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> -tao
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:55 AM
> > >> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > >>
> > >> Agree with your point about other repos also not being based on
> > versioning
> > >> Tao. I would point out that I've given some that I've worked with
> > similar
> > >> feedback: https://github.com/onnx/onnx-tensorrt/issues/68
> > >>
> > >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Tao,
> > >>>
> > >>> You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have to
> > >>> start somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate to start
> with.
> > >>> This is not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with the
> > >>> releases of the submodules but instead to pick only stable
> > >>> releases and not to pick up bleeding edge commits from the tip of
> > >>> the master, this gives us confidence in the submodule that MXNet
> > >>> users are depending on that especially if we make MKLDNN the default.
> > >>>
> > >>> Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has created
> > >>> this issue https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369,
> > >>> please add details and link the corresponding issue in MKLDNN(I
> > >>> couldn't
> > find).
> > >>>
> > >>> -Naveen
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen
> > >>>> about MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making
> > >>>> MKL-DNN default here.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> @Kellen,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially
> > >>>> supported by MKL-DNN.
> > >>>> https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So
> > >>>> they are supposed to generate code according to the platform
> > >>>> during runtime. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code
> > >>>> in MXNet, it will generate instructions according to the
> > >>>> options/flags of compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when build
> > >>>> MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling machine. That's
> > >>>> exactly what we are doing
> > >> for MKL-DNN build in MXNet.
> > >>> Even
> > >>>> without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal
> > >>>> instructions
> > >>> of
> > >>>> MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine
> > >>>> which probably only supports SSE.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> @Naveen,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression from
> > >>>> the
> > >>> recent
> > >>>> version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a new
> > >>>> update of MKL-DNN.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder.
> > >>>> Seems
> > >>> we
> > >>>> don't require release versions for most of these dependencies.
> > >>>> The
> > >>> release
> > >>>> period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I think it
> > >>>> would
> > >>> be
> > >>>> a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release of a
> > >>>> submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all submodules.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -tao
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
> > >>>> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > >>>> Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Alex,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
> > >>>>
> > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+Intel
> > >>> +MKL
> > >>> -DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
> > >>>> ?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from my
> > >>>> offline conversation I am briefly aware performance issues with
> > >>>> LSTM, is there an GitHub issue for it?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest
> > >>>> commit or releases ? If not we should move to releases before we
> > >>>> make it a
> > >>> default.
> > >>>> Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev
> > >>>> packages) at least we should rely on well tested releases.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks, Naveen
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
> > >>> <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8
> > >>>>> speedup with
> > >>>>> Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With
> > >>>>> a smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is
> > >>>>> more significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to
> > >>>>> have MKLDNN enabled by default
> > >>>>> (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be
> > >>>>> merged before 1.4.0 release.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy"
> > >>>>> <pe...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen
> > >>>>> 1950X and unit
> > >>>>> tests are passing.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx"
> > >>> flag.
> > >>>>> There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Pedro.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko
> > >>>>> <lu...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
> > >>>> companies!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this
> > >>>>> boost "out of the
> > >>>>>> box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with
> > >>>>> regards to
> > >>>>>> noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it
> > >>>>> gracefully fallback?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hagay
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández
> > >>>>> <wi...@apache.org>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> > >>>>> instructions,
> > >>>>>>> then +1
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hey all,
> > >>>>>>>> We have been working hard these past few months to
> > >>>>> integrate
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>>>> stabilize
> > >>>>>>>> Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet
> > >>>>> and have made
> > >>>>>>>> incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions
> > >>>>> (such as
> > >>>>> c5.18x)
> > >>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>> have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> > >>>>> platforms (Macs,
> > >>>>>>>> AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks
> > >>>>> can be found
> > >>>>>>> here
> > >>>>>>>> (
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=9
> > >>> 5650
> > >>> 764
> > >>>>>>>> and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591
> > >> ).
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer
> > >>>>> to either pip
> > >>>>>>>> install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> > >>>>> themselves from
> > >>>>>>>> source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> > >>>>> performance "out
> > >>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>> the box” with mxnet we should include this in the
> > >>>>> default
> > >>>> build.
> > >>>>> The
> > >>>>>>> mkldnn
> > >>>>>>>> library is included with in the pip package build so it
> > >>>>> does
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>>> require
> > >>>>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>> external dependency.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions
> > >>>>> on certain
> > >>>>>>>> platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> > >>>>> back); but we
> > >>>>>>>> added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows
> > >>>>> users to turn of
> > >>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>> feature during runtime. Please bring up any other
> > >>>>> concerns you may have
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> your thoughts on including this accelerator in the
> > >>>>> default
> > >>>> build.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>> Alex
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>
RE: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by "Lv, Tao A" <ta...@intel.com>.
Hi Anirudh,
Just to confirm, you're focusing on the 1.4.0 release of MXNet and want to have a release version of MKL-DNN there, right? Or do you mean all the development in the future should base on the release version of MKL-DNN? For the former one, I think 0.17 release of MKL-DNN is a good choice. But it will not have fix for the LSTM regression mentioned in previous email.
I'm talking about the versioning mechanism with MKL-DNN maintainers and will be back to you if I get any response. But from the releasing history of MKL-DNN, I cannot find any evidence about patch release.
-tao
-----Original Message-----
From: Anirudh Subramanian [mailto:anirudh2290@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:16 AM
To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Hi Tao,
I agree with Steffen that we can start with a stable release for MKLDNN for 1.4.0. For your suggestion on using 0.17, can you provide info on what versioning mechanism MKLDNN uses. Once a MKLDNN release is out and there are some regressions found like the LSTM regression, would it be possible to do a patch release for it or maintain a release branch for it ?
Anirudh
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:03 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Steffen,
>
> I think all the commits on MKL-DNN master branch are well tested for
> MKL-DNN development team. If we really want to have a release commit
> in the coming 1.4 mxnet release, my suggestion is 0.17 MKL-DNN release.
>
> Thank you,
> Tao
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:09 AM, Steffen Rochel
> > <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to make MKL-DNN default.
> > I'm tracking https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369
> > as open issue to be addressed for 1.4.0 I do agree that we should
> > move to a model to include released
> dependencies
> > instead of just taking bleeding edge snapshots.
> > However, speed of development is important as well.
> > As a compromise for 1.4.0 release with MKL-DNN: can the MKL-DNN
> development
> > team provide us with a well tested tag/commit id to include in 1.4.0
> > release?
> > Steffen
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the information, Kellen and Naveen.
> >>
> >> Better than onnx-tensorrt, MKL-DNN has already provided versioning
> >> and release tags. My concern is that as MKL-DNN is still under
> >> intensive development, if it has a new feature or bug fix on its
> >> master branch,
> do we
> >> really want to wait for next release to get it supported in MXNet?
> >>
> >> Take the LSTM regression as an example, probably MKL-DNN will give
> >> a fix or improvement on its master branch soon, do we need to wait
> >> for 0.18 release to get it fixed for mxnet user? AFAIK, tensorflow
> >> is also using normal commit id, not release, as the dependency for MKL-DNN.
> >>
> >> Regarding the LSTM regression, we are using internal JIRA tickets
> >> rather than github issues to track the defects of MKL-DNN. But I
> >> agree with
> you,
> >> we need update the progress of it in Alex's issue.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -tao
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:55 AM
> >> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> >>
> >> Agree with your point about other repos also not being based on
> versioning
> >> Tao. I would point out that I've given some that I've worked with
> similar
> >> feedback: https://github.com/onnx/onnx-tensorrt/issues/68
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Tao,
> >>>
> >>> You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have to
> >>> start somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate to start with.
> >>> This is not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with the
> >>> releases of the submodules but instead to pick only stable
> >>> releases and not to pick up bleeding edge commits from the tip of
> >>> the master, this gives us confidence in the submodule that MXNet
> >>> users are depending on that especially if we make MKLDNN the default.
> >>>
> >>> Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has created
> >>> this issue https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369,
> >>> please add details and link the corresponding issue in MKLDNN(I
> >>> couldn't
> find).
> >>>
> >>> -Naveen
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen
> >>>> about MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making
> >>>> MKL-DNN default here.
> >>>>
> >>>> @Kellen,
> >>>>
> >>>> FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially
> >>>> supported by MKL-DNN.
> >>>> https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
> >>>>
> >>>> Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So
> >>>> they are supposed to generate code according to the platform
> >>>> during runtime. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code
> >>>> in MXNet, it will generate instructions according to the
> >>>> options/flags of compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when build
> >>>> MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling machine. That's
> >>>> exactly what we are doing
> >> for MKL-DNN build in MXNet.
> >>> Even
> >>>> without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal
> >>>> instructions
> >>> of
> >>>> MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine
> >>>> which probably only supports SSE.
> >>>>
> >>>> @Naveen,
> >>>>
> >>>> The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression from
> >>>> the
> >>> recent
> >>>> version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a new
> >>>> update of MKL-DNN.
> >>>>
> >>>> MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder.
> >>>> Seems
> >>> we
> >>>> don't require release versions for most of these dependencies.
> >>>> The
> >>> release
> >>>> period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I think it
> >>>> would
> >>> be
> >>>> a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release of a
> >>>> submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all submodules.
> >>>>
> >>>> -tao
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
> >>>> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> >>>> Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Alex,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
> >>>>
> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+Intel
> >>> +MKL
> >>> -DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
> >>>> ?
> >>>>
> >>>> are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from my
> >>>> offline conversation I am briefly aware performance issues with
> >>>> LSTM, is there an GitHub issue for it?
> >>>>
> >>>> MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest
> >>>> commit or releases ? If not we should move to releases before we
> >>>> make it a
> >>> default.
> >>>> Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev
> >>>> packages) at least we should rely on well tested releases.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks, Naveen
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
> >>> <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
> >>>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8
> >>>>> speedup with
> >>>>> Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With
> >>>>> a smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is
> >>>>> more significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to
> >>>>> have MKLDNN enabled by default
> >>>>> (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be
> >>>>> merged before 1.4.0 release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy"
> >>>>> <pe...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen
> >>>>> 1950X and unit
> >>>>> tests are passing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx"
> >>> flag.
> >>>>> There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pedro.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko
> >>>>> <lu...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
> >>>> companies!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this
> >>>>> boost "out of the
> >>>>>> box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with
> >>>>> regards to
> >>>>>> noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it
> >>>>> gracefully fallback?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hagay
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández
> >>>>> <wi...@apache.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> >>>>> instructions,
> >>>>>>> then +1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hey all,
> >>>>>>>> We have been working hard these past few months to
> >>>>> integrate
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>> stabilize
> >>>>>>>> Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet
> >>>>> and have made
> >>>>>>>> incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions
> >>>>> (such as
> >>>>> c5.18x)
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> >>>>> platforms (Macs,
> >>>>>>>> AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks
> >>>>> can be found
> >>>>>>> here
> >>>>>>>> (
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=9
> >>> 5650
> >>> 764
> >>>>>>>> and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591
> >> ).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer
> >>>>> to either pip
> >>>>>>>> install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> >>>>> themselves from
> >>>>>>>> source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> >>>>> performance "out
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> the box” with mxnet we should include this in the
> >>>>> default
> >>>> build.
> >>>>> The
> >>>>>>> mkldnn
> >>>>>>>> library is included with in the pip package build so it
> >>>>> does
> >>>> not
> >>>>>> require
> >>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>> external dependency.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions
> >>>>> on certain
> >>>>>>>> platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> >>>>> back); but we
> >>>>>>>> added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows
> >>>>> users to turn of
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>> feature during runtime. Please bring up any other
> >>>>> concerns you may have
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> your thoughts on including this accelerator in the
> >>>>> default
> >>>> build.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>> Alex
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by Anirudh Subramanian <an...@gmail.com>.
Hi Tao,
I agree with Steffen that we can start with a stable release for MKLDNN for
1.4.0. For your suggestion on using 0.17, can you provide info on what
versioning mechanism MKLDNN uses. Once a MKLDNN release is out and there
are some regressions found like the LSTM regression, would it be possible
to do a patch release for it or maintain a release branch for it ?
Anirudh
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:03 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Steffen,
>
> I think all the commits on MKL-DNN master branch are well tested for
> MKL-DNN development team. If we really want to have a release commit in the
> coming 1.4 mxnet release, my suggestion is 0.17 MKL-DNN release.
>
> Thank you,
> Tao
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:09 AM, Steffen Rochel <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to make MKL-DNN default.
> > I'm tracking https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369 as
> > open issue to be addressed for 1.4.0
> > I do agree that we should move to a model to include released
> dependencies
> > instead of just taking bleeding edge snapshots.
> > However, speed of development is important as well.
> > As a compromise for 1.4.0 release with MKL-DNN: can the MKL-DNN
> development
> > team provide us with a well tested tag/commit id to include in 1.4.0
> > release?
> > Steffen
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the information, Kellen and Naveen.
> >>
> >> Better than onnx-tensorrt, MKL-DNN has already provided versioning and
> >> release tags. My concern is that as MKL-DNN is still under intensive
> >> development, if it has a new feature or bug fix on its master branch,
> do we
> >> really want to wait for next release to get it supported in MXNet?
> >>
> >> Take the LSTM regression as an example, probably MKL-DNN will give a fix
> >> or improvement on its master branch soon, do we need to wait for 0.18
> >> release to get it fixed for mxnet user? AFAIK, tensorflow is also using
> >> normal commit id, not release, as the dependency for MKL-DNN.
> >>
> >> Regarding the LSTM regression, we are using internal JIRA tickets rather
> >> than github issues to track the defects of MKL-DNN. But I agree with
> you,
> >> we need update the progress of it in Alex's issue.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -tao
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:55 AM
> >> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> >>
> >> Agree with your point about other repos also not being based on
> versioning
> >> Tao. I would point out that I've given some that I've worked with
> similar
> >> feedback: https://github.com/onnx/onnx-tensorrt/issues/68
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Tao,
> >>>
> >>> You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have to start
> >>> somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate to start with.
> >>> This is not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with the
> >>> releases of the submodules but instead to pick only stable releases
> >>> and not to pick up bleeding edge commits from the tip of the master,
> >>> this gives us confidence in the submodule that MXNet users are
> >>> depending on that especially if we make MKLDNN the default.
> >>>
> >>> Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has created this
> >>> issue https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369, please
> >>> add details and link the corresponding issue in MKLDNN(I couldn't
> find).
> >>>
> >>> -Naveen
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen about
> >>>> MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making MKL-DNN
> >>>> default here.
> >>>>
> >>>> @Kellen,
> >>>>
> >>>> FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially
> >>>> supported by MKL-DNN.
> >>>> https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
> >>>>
> >>>> Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So they
> >>>> are supposed to generate code according to the platform during
> >>>> runtime. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code in MXNet,
> >>>> it will generate instructions according to the options/flags of
> >>>> compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when build MKL-DNN to avoid
> >>>> optimization for compiling machine. That's exactly what we are doing
> >> for MKL-DNN build in MXNet.
> >>> Even
> >>>> without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal
> >>>> instructions
> >>> of
> >>>> MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine which
> >>>> probably only supports SSE.
> >>>>
> >>>> @Naveen,
> >>>>
> >>>> The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression from the
> >>> recent
> >>>> version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a new
> >>>> update of MKL-DNN.
> >>>>
> >>>> MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder.
> >>>> Seems
> >>> we
> >>>> don't require release versions for most of these dependencies. The
> >>> release
> >>>> period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I think it
> >>>> would
> >>> be
> >>>> a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release of a
> >>>> submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all submodules.
> >>>>
> >>>> -tao
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
> >>>> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> >>>> Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Alex,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
> >>>>
> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+Intel+MKL
> >>> -DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
> >>>> ?
> >>>>
> >>>> are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from my
> >>>> offline conversation I am briefly aware performance issues with
> >>>> LSTM, is there an GitHub issue for it?
> >>>>
> >>>> MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit
> >>>> or releases ? If not we should move to releases before we make it a
> >>> default.
> >>>> Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev
> >>>> packages) at least we should rely on well tested releases.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks, Naveen
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
> >>> <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
> >>>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8 speedup
> >>>>> with
> >>>>> Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With a
> >>>>> smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is more
> >>>>> significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to have
> >>>>> MKLDNN enabled by default
> >>>>> (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be
> >>>>> merged before 1.4.0 release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy"
> >>>>> <pe...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen
> >>>>> 1950X and unit
> >>>>> tests are passing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx"
> >>> flag.
> >>>>> There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pedro.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko
> >>>>> <lu...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
> >>>> companies!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this
> >>>>> boost "out of the
> >>>>>> box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with
> >>>>> regards to
> >>>>>> noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it
> >>>>> gracefully fallback?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hagay
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández
> >>>>> <wi...@apache.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> >>>>> instructions,
> >>>>>>> then +1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hey all,
> >>>>>>>> We have been working hard these past few months to
> >>>>> integrate
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>> stabilize
> >>>>>>>> Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet
> >>>>> and have made
> >>>>>>>> incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions
> >>>>> (such as
> >>>>> c5.18x)
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> >>>>> platforms (Macs,
> >>>>>>>> AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks
> >>>>> can be found
> >>>>>>> here
> >>>>>>>> (
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95650
> >>> 764
> >>>>>>>> and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591
> >> ).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer
> >>>>> to either pip
> >>>>>>>> install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> >>>>> themselves from
> >>>>>>>> source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> >>>>> performance "out
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> the box” with mxnet we should include this in the
> >>>>> default
> >>>> build.
> >>>>> The
> >>>>>>> mkldnn
> >>>>>>>> library is included with in the pip package build so it
> >>>>> does
> >>>> not
> >>>>>> require
> >>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>> external dependency.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions
> >>>>> on certain
> >>>>>>>> platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> >>>>> back); but we
> >>>>>>>> added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows
> >>>>> users to turn of
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>> feature during runtime. Please bring up any other
> >>>>> concerns you may have
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> your thoughts on including this accelerator in the
> >>>>> default
> >>>> build.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>> Alex
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by "Lv, Tao A" <ta...@intel.com>.
Hi Steffen,
I think all the commits on MKL-DNN master branch are well tested for MKL-DNN development team. If we really want to have a release commit in the coming 1.4 mxnet release, my suggestion is 0.17 MKL-DNN release.
Thank you,
Tao
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:09 AM, Steffen Rochel <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to make MKL-DNN default.
> I'm tracking https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369 as
> open issue to be addressed for 1.4.0
> I do agree that we should move to a model to include released dependencies
> instead of just taking bleeding edge snapshots.
> However, speed of development is important as well.
> As a compromise for 1.4.0 release with MKL-DNN: can the MKL-DNN development
> team provide us with a well tested tag/commit id to include in 1.4.0
> release?
> Steffen
>
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the information, Kellen and Naveen.
>>
>> Better than onnx-tensorrt, MKL-DNN has already provided versioning and
>> release tags. My concern is that as MKL-DNN is still under intensive
>> development, if it has a new feature or bug fix on its master branch, do we
>> really want to wait for next release to get it supported in MXNet?
>>
>> Take the LSTM regression as an example, probably MKL-DNN will give a fix
>> or improvement on its master branch soon, do we need to wait for 0.18
>> release to get it fixed for mxnet user? AFAIK, tensorflow is also using
>> normal commit id, not release, as the dependency for MKL-DNN.
>>
>> Regarding the LSTM regression, we are using internal JIRA tickets rather
>> than github issues to track the defects of MKL-DNN. But I agree with you,
>> we need update the progress of it in Alex's issue.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -tao
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:55 AM
>> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
>>
>> Agree with your point about other repos also not being based on versioning
>> Tao. I would point out that I've given some that I've worked with similar
>> feedback: https://github.com/onnx/onnx-tensorrt/issues/68
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Tao,
>>>
>>> You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have to start
>>> somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate to start with.
>>> This is not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with the
>>> releases of the submodules but instead to pick only stable releases
>>> and not to pick up bleeding edge commits from the tip of the master,
>>> this gives us confidence in the submodule that MXNet users are
>>> depending on that especially if we make MKLDNN the default.
>>>
>>> Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has created this
>>> issue https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369, please
>>> add details and link the corresponding issue in MKLDNN(I couldn't find).
>>>
>>> -Naveen
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen about
>>>> MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making MKL-DNN
>>>> default here.
>>>>
>>>> @Kellen,
>>>>
>>>> FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially
>>>> supported by MKL-DNN.
>>>> https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
>>>>
>>>> Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So they
>>>> are supposed to generate code according to the platform during
>>>> runtime. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code in MXNet,
>>>> it will generate instructions according to the options/flags of
>>>> compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when build MKL-DNN to avoid
>>>> optimization for compiling machine. That's exactly what we are doing
>> for MKL-DNN build in MXNet.
>>> Even
>>>> without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal
>>>> instructions
>>> of
>>>> MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine which
>>>> probably only supports SSE.
>>>>
>>>> @Naveen,
>>>>
>>>> The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression from the
>>> recent
>>>> version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a new
>>>> update of MKL-DNN.
>>>>
>>>> MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder.
>>>> Seems
>>> we
>>>> don't require release versions for most of these dependencies. The
>>> release
>>>> period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I think it
>>>> would
>>> be
>>>> a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release of a
>>>> submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all submodules.
>>>>
>>>> -tao
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
>>>> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+Intel+MKL
>>> -DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from my
>>>> offline conversation I am briefly aware performance issues with
>>>> LSTM, is there an GitHub issue for it?
>>>>
>>>> MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit
>>>> or releases ? If not we should move to releases before we make it a
>>> default.
>>>> Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev
>>>> packages) at least we should rely on well tested releases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Naveen
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
>>> <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8 speedup
>>>>> with
>>>>> Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With a
>>>>> smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is more
>>>>> significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to have
>>>>> MKLDNN enabled by default
>>>>> (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be
>>>>> merged before 1.4.0 release.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy"
>>>>> <pe...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen
>>>>> 1950X and unit
>>>>> tests are passing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx"
>>> flag.
>>>>> There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pedro.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko
>>>>> <lu...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
>>>> companies!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this
>>>>> boost "out of the
>>>>>> box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with
>>>>> regards to
>>>>>> noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it
>>>>> gracefully fallback?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hagay
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández
>>>>> <wi...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
>>>>> instructions,
>>>>>>> then +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>> We have been working hard these past few months to
>>>>> integrate
>>>> and
>>>>>>> stabilize
>>>>>>>> Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet
>>>>> and have made
>>>>>>>> incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions
>>>>> (such as
>>>>> c5.18x)
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
>>>>> platforms (Macs,
>>>>>>>> AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks
>>>>> can be found
>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>> (
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95650
>>> 764
>>>>>>>> and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591
>> ).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer
>>>>> to either pip
>>>>>>>> install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
>>>>> themselves from
>>>>>>>> source. Given that we should try to provide the best
>>>>> performance "out
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the box” with mxnet we should include this in the
>>>>> default
>>>> build.
>>>>> The
>>>>>>> mkldnn
>>>>>>>> library is included with in the pip package build so it
>>>>> does
>>>> not
>>>>>> require
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> external dependency.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions
>>>>> on certain
>>>>>>>> platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
>>>>> back); but we
>>>>>>>> added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows
>>>>> users to turn of
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> feature during runtime. Please bring up any other
>>>>> concerns you may have
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> your thoughts on including this accelerator in the
>>>>> default
>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by Steffen Rochel <st...@gmail.com>.
+1 to make MKL-DNN default.
I'm tracking https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369 as
open issue to be addressed for 1.4.0
I do agree that we should move to a model to include released dependencies
instead of just taking bleeding edge snapshots.
However, speed of development is important as well.
As a compromise for 1.4.0 release with MKL-DNN: can the MKL-DNN development
team provide us with a well tested tag/commit id to include in 1.4.0
release?
Steffen
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the information, Kellen and Naveen.
>
> Better than onnx-tensorrt, MKL-DNN has already provided versioning and
> release tags. My concern is that as MKL-DNN is still under intensive
> development, if it has a new feature or bug fix on its master branch, do we
> really want to wait for next release to get it supported in MXNet?
>
> Take the LSTM regression as an example, probably MKL-DNN will give a fix
> or improvement on its master branch soon, do we need to wait for 0.18
> release to get it fixed for mxnet user? AFAIK, tensorflow is also using
> normal commit id, not release, as the dependency for MKL-DNN.
>
> Regarding the LSTM regression, we are using internal JIRA tickets rather
> than github issues to track the defects of MKL-DNN. But I agree with you,
> we need update the progress of it in Alex's issue.
>
> Thanks,
> -tao
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:55 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
>
> Agree with your point about other repos also not being based on versioning
> Tao. I would point out that I've given some that I've worked with similar
> feedback: https://github.com/onnx/onnx-tensorrt/issues/68
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Tao,
> >
> > You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have to start
> > somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate to start with.
> > This is not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with the
> > releases of the submodules but instead to pick only stable releases
> > and not to pick up bleeding edge commits from the tip of the master,
> > this gives us confidence in the submodule that MXNet users are
> > depending on that especially if we make MKLDNN the default.
> >
> > Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has created this
> > issue https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369, please
> > add details and link the corresponding issue in MKLDNN(I couldn't find).
> >
> > -Naveen
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen about
> > > MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making MKL-DNN
> > > default here.
> > >
> > > @Kellen,
> > >
> > > FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially
> > > supported by MKL-DNN.
> > > https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
> > >
> > > Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So they
> > > are supposed to generate code according to the platform during
> > > runtime. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code in MXNet,
> > > it will generate instructions according to the options/flags of
> > > compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when build MKL-DNN to avoid
> > > optimization for compiling machine. That's exactly what we are doing
> for MKL-DNN build in MXNet.
> > Even
> > > without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal
> > > instructions
> > of
> > > MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine which
> > > probably only supports SSE.
> > >
> > > @Naveen,
> > >
> > > The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression from the
> > recent
> > > version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a new
> > > update of MKL-DNN.
> > >
> > > MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder.
> > > Seems
> > we
> > > don't require release versions for most of these dependencies. The
> > release
> > > period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I think it
> > > would
> > be
> > > a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release of a
> > > submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all submodules.
> > >
> > > -tao
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
> > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
> > >
> > > Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+Intel+MKL
> > -DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
> > > ?
> > >
> > > are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from my
> > > offline conversation I am briefly aware performance issues with
> > > LSTM, is there an GitHub issue for it?
> > >
> > > MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit
> > > or releases ? If not we should move to releases before we make it a
> > default.
> > > Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev
> > > packages) at least we should rely on well tested releases.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Naveen
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
> > <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8 speedup
> > > > with
> > > > Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With a
> > > > smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is more
> > > > significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to have
> > > > MKLDNN enabled by default
> > > > (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be
> > > > merged before 1.4.0 release.
> > > >
> > > > On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy"
> > > > <pe...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen
> > > > 1950X and unit
> > > > tests are passing.
> > > >
> > > > Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx"
> > flag.
> > > > There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> > > >
> > > > Pedro.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko
> > > > <lu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
> > > companies!
> > > > >
> > > > > The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this
> > > > boost "out of the
> > > > > box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with
> > > > regards to
> > > > > noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it
> > > > gracefully fallback?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hagay
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández
> > > > <wi...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> > > > instructions,
> > > > > > then +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > > > We have been working hard these past few months to
> > > > integrate
> > > and
> > > > > > stabilize
> > > > > > > Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet
> > > > and have made
> > > > > > > incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions
> > > > (such as
> > > > c5.18x)
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> > > > platforms (Macs,
> > > > > > > AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks
> > > > can be found
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > (
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95650
> > 764
> > > > > > > and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591
> ).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer
> > > > to either pip
> > > > > > > install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> > > > themselves from
> > > > > > > source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> > > > performance "out
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the box” with mxnet we should include this in the
> > > > default
> > > build.
> > > > The
> > > > > > mkldnn
> > > > > > > library is included with in the pip package build so it
> > > > does
> > > not
> > > > > require
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > external dependency.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions
> > > > on certain
> > > > > > > platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> > > > back); but we
> > > > > > > added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows
> > > > users to turn of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > feature during runtime. Please bring up any other
> > > > concerns you may have
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > your thoughts on including this accelerator in the
> > > > default
> > > build.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
RE: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by "Lv, Tao A" <ta...@intel.com>.
Thanks for the information, Kellen and Naveen.
Better than onnx-tensorrt, MKL-DNN has already provided versioning and release tags. My concern is that as MKL-DNN is still under intensive development, if it has a new feature or bug fix on its master branch, do we really want to wait for next release to get it supported in MXNet?
Take the LSTM regression as an example, probably MKL-DNN will give a fix or improvement on its master branch soon, do we need to wait for 0.18 release to get it fixed for mxnet user? AFAIK, tensorflow is also using normal commit id, not release, as the dependency for MKL-DNN.
Regarding the LSTM regression, we are using internal JIRA tickets rather than github issues to track the defects of MKL-DNN. But I agree with you, we need update the progress of it in Alex's issue.
Thanks,
-tao
-----Original Message-----
From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 10:55 AM
To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Agree with your point about other repos also not being based on versioning Tao. I would point out that I've given some that I've worked with similar
feedback: https://github.com/onnx/onnx-tensorrt/issues/68
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tao,
>
> You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have to start
> somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate to start with.
> This is not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with the
> releases of the submodules but instead to pick only stable releases
> and not to pick up bleeding edge commits from the tip of the master,
> this gives us confidence in the submodule that MXNet users are
> depending on that especially if we make MKLDNN the default.
>
> Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has created this
> issue https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369, please
> add details and link the corresponding issue in MKLDNN(I couldn't find).
>
> -Naveen
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen about
> > MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making MKL-DNN
> > default here.
> >
> > @Kellen,
> >
> > FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially
> > supported by MKL-DNN.
> > https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
> >
> > Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So they
> > are supposed to generate code according to the platform during
> > runtime. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code in MXNet,
> > it will generate instructions according to the options/flags of
> > compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when build MKL-DNN to avoid
> > optimization for compiling machine. That's exactly what we are doing for MKL-DNN build in MXNet.
> Even
> > without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal
> > instructions
> of
> > MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine which
> > probably only supports SSE.
> >
> > @Naveen,
> >
> > The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression from the
> recent
> > version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a new
> > update of MKL-DNN.
> >
> > MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder.
> > Seems
> we
> > don't require release versions for most of these dependencies. The
> release
> > period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I think it
> > would
> be
> > a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release of a
> > submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all submodules.
> >
> > -tao
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
> >
> > Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+Intel+MKL
> -DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
> > ?
> >
> > are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from my
> > offline conversation I am briefly aware performance issues with
> > LSTM, is there an GitHub issue for it?
> >
> > MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit
> > or releases ? If not we should move to releases before we make it a
> default.
> > Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev
> > packages) at least we should rely on well tested releases.
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Naveen
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
> <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8 speedup
> > > with
> > > Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With a
> > > smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is more
> > > significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to have
> > > MKLDNN enabled by default
> > > (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be
> > > merged before 1.4.0 release.
> > >
> > > On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy"
> > > <pe...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen
> > > 1950X and unit
> > > tests are passing.
> > >
> > > Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx"
> flag.
> > > There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> > >
> > > Pedro.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko
> > > <lu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
> > companies!
> > > >
> > > > The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this
> > > boost "out of the
> > > > box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> > > >
> > > > Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with
> > > regards to
> > > > noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it
> > > gracefully fallback?
> > > >
> > > > Hagay
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández
> > > <wi...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> > > instructions,
> > > > > then +1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > > We have been working hard these past few months to
> > > integrate
> > and
> > > > > stabilize
> > > > > > Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet
> > > and have made
> > > > > > incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions
> > > (such as
> > > c5.18x)
> > > > we
> > > > > > have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> > > platforms (Macs,
> > > > > > AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks
> > > can be found
> > > > > here
> > > > > > (
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95650
> 764
> > > > > > and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer
> > > to either pip
> > > > > > install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> > > themselves from
> > > > > > source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> > > performance "out
> > > > of
> > > > > > the box” with mxnet we should include this in the
> > > default
> > build.
> > > The
> > > > > mkldnn
> > > > > > library is included with in the pip package build so it
> > > does
> > not
> > > > require
> > > > > an
> > > > > > external dependency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions
> > > on certain
> > > > > > platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> > > back); but we
> > > > > > added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows
> > > users to turn of
> > > > this
> > > > > > feature during runtime. Please bring up any other
> > > concerns you may have
> > > > > and
> > > > > > your thoughts on including this accelerator in the
> > > default
> > build.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by kellen sunderland <ke...@gmail.com>.
Agree with your point about other repos also not being based on versioning
Tao. I would point out that I've given some that I've worked with similar
feedback: https://github.com/onnx/onnx-tensorrt/issues/68
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:48 PM Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tao,
>
> You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have to start
> somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate to start with. This is
> not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with the releases of the
> submodules but instead to pick only stable releases and not to pick up
> bleeding edge commits from the tip of the master, this gives us confidence
> in the submodule that MXNet users are depending on that especially if we
> make MKLDNN the default.
>
> Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has created this
> issue https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369, please add
> details and link the corresponding issue in MKLDNN(I couldn't find).
>
> -Naveen
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen about
> > MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making MKL-DNN default
> > here.
> >
> > @Kellen,
> >
> > FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially supported by
> > MKL-DNN.
> > https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
> >
> > Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So they are
> > supposed to generate code according to the platform during runtime. For
> > non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code in MXNet, it will generate
> > instructions according to the options/flags of compiler. We can set
> > -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when build MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling
> > machine. That's exactly what we are doing for MKL-DNN build in MXNet.
> Even
> > without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal instructions
> of
> > MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine which
> > probably only supports SSE.
> >
> > @Naveen,
> >
> > The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression from the
> recent
> > version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a new update of
> > MKL-DNN.
> >
> > MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder. Seems
> we
> > don't require release versions for most of these dependencies. The
> release
> > period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I think it would
> be
> > a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release of a
> > submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all submodules.
> >
> > -tao
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
> >
> > Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+Intel+MKL-DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
> > ?
> >
> > are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from my offline
> > conversation I am briefly aware performance issues with LSTM, is there an
> > GitHub issue for it?
> >
> > MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit or
> > releases ? If not we should move to releases before we make it a
> default.
> > Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev packages) at
> > least we should rely on well tested releases.
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Naveen
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander
> <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8 speedup with
> > > Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With a
> > > smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is more
> > > significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to have
> > > MKLDNN enabled by default
> > > (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be merged
> > > before 1.4.0 release.
> > >
> > > On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy" <pe...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen 1950X
> > > and unit
> > > tests are passing.
> > >
> > > Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx"
> flag.
> > > There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> > >
> > > Pedro.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko <lu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
> > companies!
> > > >
> > > > The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this boost
> > > "out of the
> > > > box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> > > >
> > > > Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with
> > > regards to
> > > > noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it gracefully
> > > fallback?
> > > >
> > > > Hagay
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> > > instructions,
> > > > > then +1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > > We have been working hard these past few months to integrate
> > and
> > > > > stabilize
> > > > > > Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet and
> > > have made
> > > > > > incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions (such
> > > as
> > > c5.18x)
> > > > we
> > > > > > have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> > > platforms (Macs,
> > > > > > AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks can
> > > be found
> > > > > here
> > > > > > (
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95650764
> > > > > > and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer to
> > > either pip
> > > > > > install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> > > themselves from
> > > > > > source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> > > performance "out
> > > > of
> > > > > > the box” with mxnet we should include this in the default
> > build.
> > > The
> > > > > mkldnn
> > > > > > library is included with in the pip package build so it does
> > not
> > > > require
> > > > > an
> > > > > > external dependency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions on
> > > certain
> > > > > > platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> > > back); but we
> > > > > > added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows users to
> > > turn of
> > > > this
> > > > > > feature during runtime. Please bring up any other concerns
> > > you may have
> > > > > and
> > > > > > your thoughts on including this accelerator in the default
> > build.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com>.
Tao,
You are right there are many submodules in 3rd party. We have to start
somewhere and I believe this one is a good candidate to start with. This is
not to cater to release of MXNet or to tie them with the releases of the
submodules but instead to pick only stable releases and not to pick up
bleeding edge commits from the tip of the master, this gives us confidence
in the submodule that MXNet users are depending on that especially if we
make MKLDNN the default.
Good to know it is known already as a regression.Alex has created this
issue https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13369, please add
details and link the corresponding issue in MKLDNN(I couldn't find).
-Naveen
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:04 PM Lv, Tao A <ta...@intel.com> wrote:
> Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen about
> MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making MKL-DNN default
> here.
>
> @Kellen,
>
> FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially supported by
> MKL-DNN.
> https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
>
> Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So they are
> supposed to generate code according to the platform during runtime. For
> non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code in MXNet, it will generate
> instructions according to the options/flags of compiler. We can set
> -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when build MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling
> machine. That's exactly what we are doing for MKL-DNN build in MXNet. Even
> without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal instructions of
> MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine which
> probably only supports SSE.
>
> @Naveen,
>
> The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression from the recent
> version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a new update of
> MKL-DNN.
>
> MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder. Seems we
> don't require release versions for most of these dependencies. The release
> period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I think it would be
> a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release of a
> submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all submodules.
>
> -tao
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
>
> Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+Intel+MKL-DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
> ?
>
> are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from my offline
> conversation I am briefly aware performance issues with LSTM, is there an
> GitHub issue for it?
>
> MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit or
> releases ? If not we should move to releases before we make it a default.
> Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev packages) at
> least we should rely on well tested releases.
>
>
> Thanks, Naveen
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander <alexzai@amazon.com.invalid
> >
> wrote:
>
> > AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8 speedup with
> > Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With a
> > smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is more
> > significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to have
> > MKLDNN enabled by default
> > (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be merged
> > before 1.4.0 release.
> >
> > On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy" <pe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen 1950X
> > and unit
> > tests are passing.
> >
> > Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx" flag.
> > There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko <lu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and
> companies!
> > >
> > > The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this boost
> > "out of the
> > > box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> > >
> > > Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with
> > regards to
> > > noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it gracefully
> > fallback?
> > >
> > > Hagay
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> > instructions,
> > > > then +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > We have been working hard these past few months to integrate
> and
> > > > stabilize
> > > > > Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet and
> > have made
> > > > > incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions (such
> > as
> > c5.18x)
> > > we
> > > > > have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> > platforms (Macs,
> > > > > AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks can
> > be found
> > > > here
> > > > > (
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95650764
> > > > > and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591).
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer to
> > either pip
> > > > > install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> > themselves from
> > > > > source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> > performance "out
> > > of
> > > > > the box” with mxnet we should include this in the default
> build.
> > The
> > > > mkldnn
> > > > > library is included with in the pip package build so it does
> not
> > > require
> > > > an
> > > > > external dependency.
> > > > >
> > > > > There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions on
> > certain
> > > > > platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> > back); but we
> > > > > added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows users to
> > turn of
> > > this
> > > > > feature during runtime. Please bring up any other concerns
> > you may have
> > > > and
> > > > > your thoughts on including this accelerator in the default
> build.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
RE: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by "Lv, Tao A" <ta...@intel.com>.
Here are my answers for the questions from Kellen and Naveen about MKL-DNN. It doesn't mean that I'm supportive for making MKL-DNN default here.
@Kellen,
FYI, here is a list for those platforms which are officially supported by MKL-DNN.
https://github.com/intel/mkl-dnn#system-requirements
Most of computation intensive kernels in MKL-DNN are JITed. So they are supposed to generate code according to the platform during runtime. For non-JIT code in MKL-DNN, same as other code in MXNet, it will generate instructions according to the options/flags of compiler. We can set -DARCH_OPT_FLAGS when build MKL-DNN to avoid optimization for compiling machine. That's exactly what we are doing for MKL-DNN build in MXNet. Even without MKL-DNN, I noticed there were issues about illegal instructions of MXNet when users import the pip package on a lower end machine which probably only supports SSE.
@Naveen,
The LSTM issue has already been identified as a regression from the recent version of MKL-DNN. Hopefully it will be fixed soon with a new update of MKL-DNN.
MXNet has many submodule dependencies under the 3rd party folder. Seems we don't require release versions for most of these dependencies. The release period of MKL-DNN and MXNet are not matched very well. I think it would be a risk for MXNet release if it hardly depends on the release of a submodule, no need to say depends on the releases of all submodules.
-tao
-----Original Message-----
From: Naveen Swamy [mailto:mnnaveen@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:08 AM
To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Hi Alex,
Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+Intel+MKL-DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
?
are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from my offline conversation I am briefly aware performance issues with LSTM, is there an GitHub issue for it?
MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit or releases ? If not we should move to releases before we make it a default.
Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev packages) at least we should rely on well tested releases.
Thanks, Naveen
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander <al...@amazon.com.invalid>
wrote:
> AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8 speedup with
> Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With a
> smaller network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is more
> significant at x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to have
> MKLDNN enabled by default
> (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be merged
> before 1.4.0 release.
>
> On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy" <pe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen 1950X
> and unit
> tests are passing.
>
> Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx" flag.
> There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
>
> Pedro.
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and companies!
> >
> > The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this boost
> "out of the
> > box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> >
> > Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with
> regards to
> > noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it gracefully
> fallback?
> >
> > Hagay
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> instructions,
> > > then +1
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey all,
> > > > We have been working hard these past few months to integrate and
> > > stabilize
> > > > Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet and
> have made
> > > > incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions (such
> as
> c5.18x)
> > we
> > > > have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other
> platforms (Macs,
> > > > AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks can
> be found
> > > here
> > > > (
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95650764
> > > > and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591).
> > > >
> > > > Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer to
> either pip
> > > > install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it
> themselves from
> > > > source. Given that we should try to provide the best
> performance "out
> > of
> > > > the box” with mxnet we should include this in the default build.
> The
> > > mkldnn
> > > > library is included with in the pip package build so it does not
> > require
> > > an
> > > > external dependency.
> > > >
> > > > There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions on
> certain
> > > > platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while
> back); but we
> > > > added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows users to
> turn of
> > this
> > > > feature during runtime. Please bring up any other concerns
> you may have
> > > and
> > > > your thoughts on including this accelerator in the default build.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
Re: Include MKLDNN into default mxnet pip package
Posted by Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com>.
Hi Alex,
Thanks for promptly running the numbers on AMD and reporting here.
Can you please update the AMD numbers here for posterity
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+with+Intel+MKL-DNN+-+Performance+Benchmarking
?
are there any outstanding issues when MKLDNN is enabled? from my offline
conversation I am briefly aware performance issues with LSTM, is there an
GitHub issue for it?
MKLDNN is a submodule dependency, are we pulling the latest commit or
releases ? If not we should move to releases before we make it a default.
Ideally we should use platform specific distributions (-dev packages) at
least we should rely on well tested releases.
Thanks, Naveen
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:55 PM Zai, Alexander <al...@amazon.com.invalid>
wrote:
> AMD benchmarks have been published. We are seeing a x15.8 speedup with
> Resnet50 (batch size 32) on AWS's new m5a.24xlarge machine. With a smaller
> network (Mobilenet - batch size 32) the speedup is more significant at
> x38.7. Let's have a vote to see if the PR to have MKLDNN enabled by default
> (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591) can be merged
> before 1.4.0 release.
>
> On 10/19/18, 9:17 AM, "Pedro Larroy" <pe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I did pip install mxnet-mkl==1.3.1b20181018 on an AMD Ryzen 1950X and
> unit
> tests are passing.
>
> Is this build using AVX512? in /proc/cpuinfo I see only "avx" flag.
> There's no "avx2" like on recent intel cpus.
>
> Pedro.
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM Hagay Lupesko <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Awesome collaborative effort across many contributors and companies!
> >
> > The boost is impressive and for MXNet users to get this boost "out
> of the
> > box" is a great benefit and makes MXNet an even better choice.
> >
> > Alex - can you clarify whether there are any down sides with regards
> to
> > noon AVX-512 architectures, AMD CPUs, etc? Will it gracefully
> fallback?
> >
> > Hagay
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 15:46 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > If there is no downside on platforms not supporting AVX512
> instructions,
> > > then +1
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 14:10 Alex Zai <az...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey all,
> > > > We have been working hard these past few months to integrate and
> > > stabilize
> > > > Intel’s MKLDNN deep learning CPU accelerator into Mxnet and have
> made
> > > > incredible progress. On CPUs with AVX512 instructions (such as
> c5.18x)
> > we
> > > > have seen performance increase up to 12x and on other platforms
> (Macs,
> > > > AVX2) we seen a speedup of 1.5+. Full list of benchmarks can be
> found
> > > here
> > > > (
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95650764
> > > > and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12591).
> > > >
> > > > Currently, using this accelerator requires the developer to
> either pip
> > > > install the mxnet-mkl version of mxnet or to build it themselves
> from
> > > > source. Given that we should try to provide the best performance
> "out
> > of
> > > > the box” with mxnet we should include this in the default build.
> The
> > > mkldnn
> > > > library is included with in the pip package build so it does not
> > require
> > > an
> > > > external dependency.
> > > >
> > > > There were concerns that MKLDNN could cause regressions on
> certain
> > > > platforms (as it did with the tensorflow version a while back);
> but we
> > > > added a env flag (MXNET_MKLDNN_ENABLED) that allows users to
> turn of
> > this
> > > > feature during runtime. Please bring up any other concerns you
> may have
> > > and
> > > > your thoughts on including this accelerator in the default build.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>