add e2e example

Author: williamwen42

intermediate_source/torch_compile_full_example.py

@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
+
+"""
+``torch.compile`` End-to-End Tutorial
+=================================
+**Author:** William Wen
+"""
+
+import warnings
+
+######################################################################
+# ``torch.compile`` is the new way to speed up your PyTorch code!
+# ``torch.compile`` makes PyTorch code run faster by
+# JIT-compiling PyTorch code into optimized kernels,
+# while requiring minimal code changes.
+#
+# This tutorial covers an end-to-end example of training and evaluating a
+# real model with ``torch.compile``. For a gentler introduction to ``torch.compile``,
+# please check out our ```torch.compile`` tutorial <https://pytorch.org/tutorials/intermediate/torch_compile_tutorial.html>`__.
+#
+# **Required pip Dependencies**
+#
+# - ``torch >= 2.0``
+# - ``torchvision``
+
+# NOTE: a modern NVIDIA GPU (H100, A100, or V100) is recommended for this tutorial in
+# order to reproduce the speedup numbers shown below and documented elsewhere.
+
+import torch
+
+gpu_ok = False
+if torch.cuda.is_available():
+    device_cap = torch.cuda.get_device_capability()
+    if device_cap in ((7, 0), (8, 0), (9, 0)):
+        gpu_ok = True
+
+if not gpu_ok:
+    warnings.warn(
+        "GPU is not NVIDIA V100, A100, or H100. Speedup numbers may be lower "
+        "than expected."
+    )
+
+
+######################################################################
+# Let's demonstrate how using ``torch.compile`` can speed up a real model.
+# We will compare standard eager mode and
+# ``torch.compile`` by evaluating and training a ``torchvision`` model on random data.
+#
+# Before we start, we need to define some utility functions.
+
+
+# Returns the result of running `fn()` and the time it took for `fn()` to run,
+# in seconds. We use CUDA events and synchronization for the most accurate
+# measurements.
+def timed(fn):
+    start = torch.cuda.Event(enable_timing=True)
+    end = torch.cuda.Event(enable_timing=True)
+    start.record()
+    result = fn()
+    end.record()
+    torch.cuda.synchronize()
+    return result, start.elapsed_time(end) / 1000
+
+
+# Generates random input and targets data for the model, where `b` is
+# batch size.
+def generate_data(b):
+    return (
+        torch.randn(b, 3, 128, 128).to().cuda(),
+        torch.randint(1000, (b,)).cuda(),
+    )
+
+
+N_ITERS = 10
+
+from torchvision.models import densenet121
+
+
+def init_model():
+    return densenet121().cuda()
+
+
+######################################################################
+# First, let's compare inference.
+#
+# Note that in the call to ``torch.compile``, we have the additional
+# ``mode`` argument, which we will discuss below.
+
+model = init_model()
+
+model_opt = torch.compile(model, mode="reduce-overhead")
+
+inp = generate_data(16)[0]
+with torch.no_grad():
+    print("eager:", timed(lambda: model(inp))[1])
+    print("compile:", timed(lambda: model_opt(inp))[1])
+
+######################################################################
+# Notice that ``torch.compile`` takes a lot longer to complete
+# compared to eager. This is because ``torch.compile`` compiles
+# the model into optimized kernels as it executes. In our example, the
+# structure of the model doesn't change, and so recompilation is not
+# needed. So if we run our optimized model several more times, we should
+# see a significant improvement compared to eager.
+
+eager_times = []
+for i in range(N_ITERS):
+    inp = generate_data(16)[0]
+    with torch.no_grad():
+        _, eager_time = timed(lambda: model(inp))
+    eager_times.append(eager_time)
+    print(f"eager eval time {i}: {eager_time}")
+
+print("~" * 10)
+
+compile_times = []
+for i in range(N_ITERS):
+    inp = generate_data(16)[0]
+    with torch.no_grad():
+        _, compile_time = timed(lambda: model_opt(inp))
+    compile_times.append(compile_time)
+    print(f"compile eval time {i}: {compile_time}")
+print("~" * 10)
+
+import numpy as np
+
+eager_med = np.median(eager_times)
+compile_med = np.median(compile_times)
+speedup = eager_med / compile_med
+assert speedup > 1
+print(
+    f"(eval) eager median: {eager_med}, compile median: {compile_med}, speedup: {speedup}x"
+)
+print("~" * 10)
+
+######################################################################
+# And indeed, we can see that running our model with ``torch.compile``
+# results in a significant speedup. Speedup mainly comes from reducing Python overhead and
+# GPU read/writes, and so the observed speedup may vary on factors such as model
+# architecture and batch size. For example, if a model's architecture is simple
+# and the amount of data is large, then the bottleneck would be
+# GPU compute and the observed speedup may be less significant.
+#
+# You may also see different speedup results depending on the chosen ``mode``
+# argument. The ``"reduce-overhead"`` mode uses CUDA graphs to further reduce
+# the overhead of Python. For your own models,
+# you may need to experiment with different modes to maximize speedup. You can
+# read more about modes `here <https://pytorch.org/get-started/pytorch-2.0/#user-experience>`__.
+#
+# You may might also notice that the second time we run our model with ``torch.compile`` is significantly
+# slower than the other runs, although it is much faster than the first run. This is because the ``"reduce-overhead"``
+# mode runs a few warm-up iterations for CUDA graphs.
+#
+# Now, let's consider comparing training.
+
+model = init_model()
+opt = torch.optim.Adam(model.parameters())
+
+
+def train(mod, data):
+    opt.zero_grad(True)
+    pred = mod(data[0])
+    loss = torch.nn.CrossEntropyLoss()(pred, data[1])
+    loss.backward()
+    opt.step()
+
+
+eager_times = []
+for i in range(N_ITERS):
+    inp = generate_data(16)
+    _, eager_time = timed(lambda: train(model, inp))
+    eager_times.append(eager_time)
+    print(f"eager train time {i}: {eager_time}")
+print("~" * 10)
+
+model = init_model()
+opt = torch.optim.Adam(model.parameters())
+train_opt = torch.compile(train, mode="reduce-overhead")
+
+compile_times = []
+for i in range(N_ITERS):
+    inp = generate_data(16)
+    _, compile_time = timed(lambda: train_opt(model, inp))
+    compile_times.append(compile_time)
+    print(f"compile train time {i}: {compile_time}")
+print("~" * 10)
+
+eager_med = np.median(eager_times)
+compile_med = np.median(compile_times)
+speedup = eager_med / compile_med
+assert speedup > 1
+print(
+    f"(train) eager median: {eager_med}, compile median: {compile_med}, speedup: {speedup}x"
+)
+print("~" * 10)
+
+######################################################################
+# Again, we can see that ``torch.compile`` takes longer in the first
+# iteration, as it must compile the model, but in subsequent iterations, we see
+# significant speedups compared to eager.
+#
+# We remark that the speedup numbers presented in this tutorial are for
+# demonstration purposes only. Official speedup values can be seen at the
+# `TorchInductor performance dashboard <https://hud.pytorch.org/benchmark/compilers>`__.

intermediate_source/torch_compile_tutorial.py

@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@
 # our previous PyTorch compiler solution,
 # `TorchScript <https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/jit.html>`__.
 #
+# For an end-to-end example on a real model, check out our `end-to-end ``torch.compile`` tutorial <https://pytorch.org/tutorials/intermediate/torch_compile_full_example.html>`__.
+#
 # **Contents**
 #
 # .. contents::
@@ -167,10 +169,6 @@ def timed(fn):
 # turn off logging for now to prevent spam
 torch._logging.set_logs(graph_code=False)
 
-# from torch._inductor.runtime.benchmarking import benchmarker
-# eager_latency = benchmarker.benchmark_gpu(lambda: mod1(torch.randn)) * 1e3
-# compiled_latency = benchmarker.benchmark_gpu(lambda: compiled_f(x)) * 1e3
-
 eager_times = []
 for i in range(10):
     _, eager_time = timed(lambda: foo3(inp))
@@ -203,6 +201,8 @@ def timed(fn):
 # architecture and batch size. For example, if a model's architecture is simple
 # and the amount of data is large, then the bottleneck would be
 # GPU compute and the observed speedup may be less significant.
+#
+# To see speedups on a real model, check out our `end-to-end ``torch.compile`` tutorial <https://pytorch.org/tutorials/intermediate/torch_compile_full_example.html>`__.
 
 ######################################################################
 # Benefits over TorchScript
@@ -424,9 +424,9 @@ def false_branch(y):
 # ---------------
 # Is ``torch.compile`` failing to speed up your model? Is compile time unreasonably long?
 # Is your code recompiling excessively? Are you having difficulties dealing with graph breaks?
-# Or maybe you want to simply learn more about the inner workings of ``torch.compile``?
+# Or maybe you simply want to learn more about the inner workings of ``torch.compile``?
 #
-# Check out `the ``torch.compile`` troubleshooting guide <https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/torch.compiler_troubleshooting.html>`_!
+# Check out `the ``torch.compile`` troubleshooting guide <https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/torch.compiler_troubleshooting.html>`__!
 
 ######################################################################
 # Conclusion
@@ -435,4 +435,7 @@ def false_branch(y):
 # In this tutorial, we introduced ``torch.compile`` by covering
 # basic usage, demonstrating speedups over eager mode, comparing to TorchScript,
 # and briefly describing graph breaks.
+#
+# For an end-to-end example on a real model, check out our `end-to-end ``torch.compile`` tutorial <https://pytorch.org/tutorials/intermediate/torch_compile_full_example.html>`__.
+#
 # We hope that you will give ``torch.compile`` a try!