Zero-Offload: Democratizing Billion-Scale Model Training

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Zero-Offload: Democratizing Billion-Scale Model Training ZeRO-Offload: Democratizing Billion-Scale Model Training Jie Ren, UC Merced; Samyam Rajbhandari, Reza Yazdani Aminabadi, and Olatunji Ruwase, Microsoft; Shuangyan Yang, UC Merced; Minjia Zhang, Microsoft; Dong Li, UC Merced; Yuxiong He, Microsoft https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc21/presentation/ren-jie This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 2021 USENIX Annual Technical Conference. July 14–16, 2021 978-1-939133-23-6 Open access to the Proceedings of the 2021 USENIX Annual Technical Conference is sponsored by USENIX. ZeRO-Offload: Democratizing Billion-Scale Model Training Jie Ren Samyam Rajbhandari Reza Yazdani Aminabadi Olatunji Ruwase UC Merced Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Shuangyan Yang Minjia Zhang Dong Li Yuxiong He UC Merced Microsoft UC Merced Microsoft Abstract language model GPT-3 [2] has a staggering number of 175B parameters. With the three orders of magnitude growth in Large-scale model training has been a playing ground for a model size since 2017, the model accuracy continues to im- limited few users, because it often requires complex model prove with the model size [12]. Recent studies in fact show refactoring and access to prohibitively expensive GPU clus- that larger models are more resource-efficient to train than ters. ZeRO-Offload changes the large model training land- smaller ones [12] for a given accuracy target. As a result, we scape by making large model training accessible to nearly expect the model size to continue growing in the future. everyone. It can train models with over 13 billion parame- ters on a single GPU, a 10x increase in size compared to However, accessibility to large model training is severely popular framework such as PyTorch, and it does so without limited by the nature of state-of-art system technologies. requiring any model change from data scientists or sacrificing Those technologies make entry into the large model training computational efficiency. space prohibitively expensive. To be more specific, distributed ZeRO-Offload enables large model training by offloading parallel DL training technologies such as pipeline parallelism data and compute to CPU. To preserve compute efficiency, it [10], model parallelism [28], and ZeRO [21] (Zero Redun- is designed to minimize data movement to/from GPU, and re- dancy Optimizer) allow transcending the memory boundaries duce CPU compute time while maximizing memory savings of single GPU/accelerator device by splitting the model states on GPU. As a result, ZeRO-Offload can achieve 40 TFlop- (parameters, gradients and optimizer states) across multiple s/GPU on a single NVIDIA V100 GPU for 10B parameter GPU devices, enabling massive models that would otherwise model, compared to 30TF using PyTorch alone for a 1.4B pa- simply not fit in a single GPU memory. All record-breaking rameter model, the largest that can be trained without running large models such as GPT-2, Megatron-LM, Turing-NLG, out of memory on GPU. ZeRO-Offload is also designed to and GPT-3, were trained using a combination of the afore- scale on multiple-GPUs when available, offering near-linear mentioned technologies. However, all of these DL parallel speedup on up to 128 GPUs. Additionally, it can work to- technologies require having enough GPU devices such that gether with model parallelism to train models with over 70 the aggregated GPU memory can hold the model states re- billion parameters on a single DGX-2 box, a 4.5x increase in quired for the training. For example, training a 10B parameter model size compared to using model parallelism alone. model efficiently requires a DGX-2 equivalent node with 16 NVIDIA V100 cards, which costs over 100K, beyond the By combining compute and memory efficiency with ease- reach of many data scientists, and even many academic and of-use, ZeRO-Offload democratizes large-scale model train- industrial institutions. ing making it accessible to even data scientists with access to just a single GPU. Heterogeneous DL training is a promising approach to reduce GPU memory requirement by exploiting CPU memory. Many efforts have been made in this direction 1 Introduction [8,9, 11, 17, 23, 23, 24, 32 –34]. Nearly all of them target CNN based models, where activation memory is the memory Since the advent of the attention-based deep learning (DL) bottleneck, and model size is fairly small (less than 500M). models in 2017, we have seen an exponential growth in DL However, the primary memory bottleneck for recent attention model size, fueled by substantial quality gains that these atten- based large model training are the model states, instead of tion based models can offer with the increase in the number activation memory. There is an absence in literature studying of parameters. For example, the largest language model in these workloads for heterogeneous DL training. Additionally, literature had less than 100M parameters in 2017. It grew existing efforts on heterogeneous training are further limited to over 300M with BERT [6] in 2018, and increased to tens in two major ways: i) nearly all of them exploit CPU memory, of billions in 2019 with models such as GPT-2 [3], T5 [20], but not CPU compute, which we show can be used to signifi- Megatron-LM [28] and Turing-NLG [25]. Today, the largest cantly reduce the CPU-GPU communication overhead, and USENIX Association 2021 USENIX Annual Technical Conference 551 ii) they are mostly designed for and evaluated on single GPU import torch import torch ... import deepspeed [9, 11, 23, 34], without a clear path to scaling efficiently on ... ... multiple GPUs, which is crucial for large model training. model= BuildModel(config) model= BuildModel(config) Addressing the aforementioned limitation, we attempt to de- optimizer= Optimizer(model) optimizer= Optimizer(model) ... model= deepspeed.initialize( mocratize large model training by developing ZeRO-Offload, ... model, optimizer) a novel heterogeneous DL training technology designed ... ... specifically for large model training. ZeRO-Offload exploits for batch in batches: for batch in batches: both CPU memory and compute for offloading, while offering loss= model(batch) loss= model(batch) loss.backward() model.backward(loss) a clear path towards efficiently scaling on multiple GPUs by optimizer.step() model.step() working with ZeRO-powered data parallelism [21]. Addition- ally, our first principle analysis shows that ZeRO-Offload pro- Figure 1: ZeRO-Offload can be enabled with a few lines of change. vides an optimal and the only optimal solution in maximizing The code on left shows a standard training pipeline, while the right memory saving while minimizing communication overhead shows the same pipeline with ZeRO-Offload enabled. and CPU compute overhead for large model training. used as the de facto standard to scale DL training to multiple ZeRO-Offload is designed around three main pillars: i) GPUs [5, 26, 35]. However, it is not designed to work with Efficiency, ii) Scalabilty, and iii) Usability. heterogeneous training and presents scalability challenges Efficiency: The offload strategy in ZeRO-Offload is de- because of the replication of data and computation in data signed with the goal of achieving comparable compute effi- parallel training. Data parallel training replicates all the model ciency to the state-of-art non-offload strategies but for signif- states such as optimizer states, parameters, and gradients, and icantly larger models. To achieve this goal, we rely on first it also replicates the optimizer computation on each GPU. principle analysis to identify a unique optimal computation Therefore, offloading model states or optimizer computation and data partitioning strategy between CPU and GPU devices. to CPU in combination with data parallelism will result in This strategy is optimal in three key aspects: i) it requires significant replication of communication and CPU compute: orders-of-magnitude fewer computation on CPU compared to increase the CPU memory requirement proportionally to the GPU, preventing the CPU compute from becoming a perfor- data parallelism degree while limiting throughput scalability mance bottleneck, ii) it minimizes the communication volume due to the increased communication. between CPU and GPU preventing communication from be- To address these challenges, ZeRO-Offload combines coming a bottleneck, and iii) it provably maximizes memory unique optimal offload strategy with ZeRO [21] powered savings on GPU while achieving minimum communication data parallelism instead of traditional data parallelism. The volume. symbiosis allows ZeRO-Offload to maintain a single copy Our analysis shows that to be optimal in the aforemen- of the optimizer states on the CPU memory regardless of tioned regards, we must offload the gradients, optimizer states the data parallel degree. Furthermore, it keeps the aggregate and optimizer computation to CPU, while keeping the param- communication volume between GPU and CPU, as well as eters and forward and backward computation on GPU. This the aggregate CPU computation a constant regardless of data strategy enables a 10x increase in model size, with minimum parallelism, allowing ZeRO-Offload to effectively utilize the communication and limited CPU computation, which allows linear increase in CPU compute with the increase in the data us to train 13B parameters on a single NVIDIA V100 GPU parallelism degree. As a result, ZeRO-Offload achieves excel- at 40 TFLOPS, compared to 30 TFLOPS on the same GPU lent scalability on up to 128 GPUs. with 1.2B parameters, the largest model that can be trained In addition to working with ZeRO powered data paral- without any CPU offloading. lelism, ZeRO-Offload can be combined with model paral- Offloading optimizer computation requires CPU to perform lelism [27, 28] to achieve higher memory savings, when mul- O(M) computation compared to O(MB) on GPU where M tiple GPUs are available. and B are the model size and batch sizes respectively. In most Usability: ZeRO-Offload is available as part of an Open- cases, the batch size is large, and CPU computation is not a Source PyTorch library, DeepSpeed (www.deepspeed.ai).
Recommended publications
  • A Taxonomy of Accelerator Architectures and Their
    A taxonomy of accelerator C. Cas$caval S. Chatterjee architectures and their H. Franke K. J. Gildea programming models P. Pattnaik As the clock frequency of silicon chips is leveling off, the computer architecture community is looking for different solutions to continue application performance scaling. One such solution is the multicore approach, i.e., using multiple simple cores that enable higher performance than wide superscalar processors, provided that the workload can exploit the parallelism. Another emerging alternative is the use of customized designs (accelerators) at different levels within the system. These are specialized functional units integrated with the core, specialized cores, attached processors, or attached appliances. The design tradeoff is quite compelling because current processor chips have billions of transistors, but they cannot all be activated or switched at the same time at high frequencies. Specialized designs provide increased power efficiency but cannot be used as general-purpose compute engines. Therefore, architects trade area for power efficiency by placing in the design additional units that are known to be active at different times. The resulting system is a heterogeneous architecture, with the potential of specialized execution that accelerates different workloads. While designing and building such hardware systems is attractive, writing and porting software to a heterogeneous platform is even more challenging than parallelism for homogeneous multicore systems. In this paper, we propose a taxonomy that allows us to define classes of accelerators, with the goal of focusing on a small set of programming models for accelerators. We discuss several types of currently popular accelerators and identify challenges to exploiting such accelerators in current software stacks.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Learning Frameworks | NVIDIA Developer
    4/10/2017 Deep Learning Frameworks | NVIDIA Developer Deep Learning Frameworks The NVIDIA Deep Learning SDK accelerates widely­used deep learning frameworks such as Caffe, CNTK, TensorFlow, Theano and Torch as well as many other deep learning applications. Choose a deep learning framework from the list below, download the supported version of cuDNN and follow the instructions on the framework page to get started. Caffe is a deep learning framework made with expression, speed, and modularity in mind. Caffe is developed by the Berkeley Vision and Learning Center (BVLC), as well as community contributors and is popular for computer vision. Caffe supports cuDNN v5 for GPU acceleration. Supported interfaces: C, C++, Python, MATLAB, Command line interface Learning Resources Deep learning course: Getting Started with the Caffe Framework Blog: Deep Learning for Computer Vision with Caffe and cuDNN Download Caffe Download cuDNN The Microsoft Cognitive Toolkit —previously known as CNTK— is a unified deep­learning toolkit from Microsoft Research that makes it easy to train and combine popular model types across multiple GPUs and servers. Microsoft Cognitive Toolkit implements highly efficient CNN and RNN training for speech, image and text data. Microsoft Cognitive Toolkit supports cuDNN v5.1 for GPU acceleration. Supported interfaces: Python, C++, C# and Command line interface Download CNTK Download cuDNN TensorFlow is a software library for numerical computation using data flow graphs, developed by Google’s Machine Intelligence research organization. TensorFlow supports cuDNN v5.1 for GPU acceleration. Supported interfaces: C++, Python Download TensorFlow Download cuDNN https://developer.nvidia.com/deep­learning­frameworks 1/3 4/10/2017 Deep Learning Frameworks | NVIDIA Developer Theano is a math expression compiler that efficiently defines, optimizes, and evaluates mathematical expressions involving multi­dimensional arrays.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Study of Deep Learning Software Frameworks
    Comparative Study of Deep Learning Software Frameworks Soheil Bahrampour, Naveen Ramakrishnan, Lukas Schott, Mohak Shah Research and Technology Center, Robert Bosch LLC {Soheil.Bahrampour, Naveen.Ramakrishnan, fixed-term.Lukas.Schott, Mohak.Shah}@us.bosch.com ABSTRACT such as dropout and weight decay [2]. As the popular- Deep learning methods have resulted in significant perfor- ity of the deep learning methods have increased over the mance improvements in several application domains and as last few years, several deep learning software frameworks such several software frameworks have been developed to have appeared to enable efficient development and imple- facilitate their implementation. This paper presents a com- mentation of these methods. The list of available frame- parative study of five deep learning frameworks, namely works includes, but is not limited to, Caffe, DeepLearning4J, Caffe, Neon, TensorFlow, Theano, and Torch, on three as- deepmat, Eblearn, Neon, PyLearn, TensorFlow, Theano, pects: extensibility, hardware utilization, and speed. The Torch, etc. Different frameworks try to optimize different as- study is performed on several types of deep learning ar- pects of training or deployment of a deep learning algorithm. chitectures and we evaluate the performance of the above For instance, Caffe emphasises ease of use where standard frameworks when employed on a single machine for both layers can be easily configured without hard-coding while (multi-threaded) CPU and GPU (Nvidia Titan X) settings. Theano provides automatic differentiation capabilities which The speed performance metrics used here include the gradi- facilitates flexibility to modify architecture for research and ent computation time, which is important during the train- development. Several of these frameworks have received ing phase of deep networks, and the forward time, which wide attention from the research community and are well- is important from the deployment perspective of trained developed allowing efficient training of deep networks with networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Study of Caffe, Neon, Theano, and Torch
    Workshop track - ICLR 2016 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CAFFE,NEON,THEANO, AND TORCH FOR DEEP LEARNING Soheil Bahrampour, Naveen Ramakrishnan, Lukas Schott, Mohak Shah Bosch Research and Technology Center fSoheil.Bahrampour,Naveen.Ramakrishnan, fixed-term.Lukas.Schott,[email protected] ABSTRACT Deep learning methods have resulted in significant performance improvements in several application domains and as such several software frameworks have been developed to facilitate their implementation. This paper presents a comparative study of four deep learning frameworks, namely Caffe, Neon, Theano, and Torch, on three aspects: extensibility, hardware utilization, and speed. The study is per- formed on several types of deep learning architectures and we evaluate the per- formance of the above frameworks when employed on a single machine for both (multi-threaded) CPU and GPU (Nvidia Titan X) settings. The speed performance metrics used here include the gradient computation time, which is important dur- ing the training phase of deep networks, and the forward time, which is important from the deployment perspective of trained networks. For convolutional networks, we also report how each of these frameworks support various convolutional algo- rithms and their corresponding performance. From our experiments, we observe that Theano and Torch are the most easily extensible frameworks. We observe that Torch is best suited for any deep architecture on CPU, followed by Theano. It also achieves the best performance on the GPU for large convolutional and fully connected networks, followed closely by Neon. Theano achieves the best perfor- mance on GPU for training and deployment of LSTM networks. Finally Caffe is the easiest for evaluating the performance of standard deep architectures.
    [Show full text]
  • Torch7: a Matlab-Like Environment for Machine Learning
    Torch7: A Matlab-like Environment for Machine Learning Ronan Collobert1 Koray Kavukcuoglu2 Clement´ Farabet3;4 1 Idiap Research Institute 2 NEC Laboratories America Martigny, Switzerland Princeton, NJ, USA 3 Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences 4 Universite´ Paris-Est New York University, New York, NY, USA Equipe´ A3SI - ESIEE Paris, France Abstract Torch7 is a versatile numeric computing framework and machine learning library that extends Lua. Its goal is to provide a flexible environment to design and train learning machines. Flexibility is obtained via Lua, an extremely lightweight scripting language. High performance is obtained via efficient OpenMP/SSE and CUDA implementations of low-level numeric routines. Torch7 can easily be in- terfaced to third-party software thanks to Lua’s light interface. 1 Torch7 Overview With Torch7, we aim at providing a framework with three main advantages: (1) it should ease the development of numerical algorithms, (2) it should be easily extended (including the use of other libraries), and (3) it should be fast. We found that a scripting (interpreted) language with a good C API appears as a convenient solu- tion to “satisfy” the constraint (2). First, a high-level language makes the process of developing a program simpler and more understandable than a low-level language. Second, if the programming language is interpreted, it becomes also easier to quickly try various ideas in an interactive manner. And finally, assuming a good C API, the scripting language becomes the “glue” between hetero- geneous libraries: different structures of the same concept (coming from different libraries) can be hidden behind a unique structure in the scripting language, while keeping all the functionalities coming from all the different libraries.
    [Show full text]
  • WWW 2013 22Nd International World Wide Web Conference
    WWW 2013 22nd International World Wide Web Conference General Chairs: Daniel Schwabe (PUC-Rio – Brazil) Virgílio Almeida (UFMG – Brazil) Hartmut Glaser (CGI.br – Brazil) Research Track: Ricardo Baeza-Yates (Yahoo! Labs – Spain & Chile) Sue Moon (KAIST – South Korea) Practice and Experience Track: Alejandro Jaimes (Yahoo! Labs – Spain) Haixun Wang (MSR – China) Developers Track: Denny Vrandečić (Wikimedia – Germany) Marcus Fontoura (Google – USA) Demos Track: Bernadette F. Lóscio (UFPE – Brazil) Irwin King (CUHK – Hong Kong) W3C Track: Marie-Claire Forgue (W3C Training, USA) Workshops Track: Alberto Laender (UFMG – Brazil) Les Carr (U. of Southampton – UK) Posters Track: Erik Wilde (EMC – USA) Fernanda Lima (UNB – Brazil) Tutorials Track: Bebo White (SLAC – USA) Maria Luiza M. Campos (UFRJ – Brazil) Industry Track: Marden S. Neubert (UOL – Brazil) Proceedings and Metadata Chair: Altigran Soares da Silva (UFAM - Brazil) Local Arrangements Committee: Chair – Hartmut Glaser Executive Secretary – Vagner Diniz PCO Liaison – Adriana Góes, Caroline D’Avo, and Renato Costa Conference Organization Assistant – Selma Morais International Relations – Caroline Burle Technology Liaison – Reinaldo Ferraz UX Designer / Web Developer – Yasodara Córdova, Ariadne Mello Internet infrastructure - Marcelo Gardini, Felipe Agnelli Barbosa Administration– Ana Paula Conte, Maria de Lourdes Carvalho, Beatriz Iossi, Carla Christiny de Mello Legal Issues – Kelli Angelini Press Relations and Social Network – Everton T. Rodrigues, S2Publicom and EntreNós PCO – SKL Eventos
    [Show full text]
  • Tensorflow, Theano, Keras, Torch, Caffe Vicky Kalogeiton, Stéphane Lathuilière, Pauline Luc, Thomas Lucas, Konstantin Shmelkov Introduction
    TensorFlow, Theano, Keras, Torch, Caffe Vicky Kalogeiton, Stéphane Lathuilière, Pauline Luc, Thomas Lucas, Konstantin Shmelkov Introduction TensorFlow Google Brain, 2015 (rewritten DistBelief) Theano University of Montréal, 2009 Keras François Chollet, 2015 (now at Google) Torch Facebook AI Research, Twitter, Google DeepMind Caffe Berkeley Vision and Learning Center (BVLC), 2013 Outline 1. Introduction of each framework a. TensorFlow b. Theano c. Keras d. Torch e. Caffe 2. Further comparison a. Code + models b. Community and documentation c. Performance d. Model deployment e. Extra features 3. Which framework to choose when ..? Introduction of each framework TensorFlow architecture 1) Low-level core (C++/CUDA) 2) Simple Python API to define the computational graph 3) High-level API (TF-Learn, TF-Slim, soon Keras…) TensorFlow computational graph - auto-differentiation! - easy multi-GPU/multi-node - native C++ multithreading - device-efficient implementation for most ops - whole pipeline in the graph: data loading, preprocessing, prefetching... TensorBoard TensorFlow development + bleeding edge (GitHub yay!) + division in core and contrib => very quick merging of new hotness + a lot of new related API: CRF, BayesFlow, SparseTensor, audio IO, CTC, seq2seq + so it can easily handle images, videos, audio, text... + if you really need a new native op, you can load a dynamic lib - sometimes contrib stuff disappears or moves - recently introduced bells and whistles are barely documented Presentation of Theano: - Maintained by Montréal University group. - Pioneered the use of a computational graph. - General machine learning tool -> Use of Lasagne and Keras. - Very popular in the research community, but not elsewhere. Falling behind. What is it like to start using Theano? - Read tutorials until you no longer can, then keep going.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Deep Learning Framework 1. Introduction 1.1
    Introduction to Deep Learning Framework 1. Introduction 1.1. Commonly used frameworks The most commonly used frameworks for deep learning include Pytorch, Tensorflow, Keras, caffe, Apache MXnet, etc. PyTorch: open source machine learning library; developed by Facebook AI Rsearch Lab; based on the Torch library; supports Python and C++ interfaces. Tensorflow: open source software library dataflow and differentiable programming; developed by Google brain team; provides stable Python & C APIs. Keras: an open-source neural-network library written in Python; conceived to be an interface; capable of running on top of TensorFlow, Microsoft Cognitive Toolkit, R, Theano, or PlaidML. Caffe: open source under BSD licence; developed at University of California, Berkeley; written in C++ with a Python interface. Apache MXnet: an open-source deep learning software framework; supports a flexible programming model and multiple programming languages (including C++, Python, Java, Julia, Matlab, JavaScript, Go, R, Scala, Perl, and Wolfram Language.) 1.2. Pytorch 1.2.1 Data Tensor: the major computation unit in PyTorch. Tensor could be viewed as the extension of vector (one-dimensional) and matrix (two-dimensional), which could be defined with any dimension. Variable: a wrapper of tensor, which includes creator, value of variable (tensor), and gradient. This is the core of the automatic derivation in Pytorch, as it has the information of both the value and the creator, which is very important for current backward process. Parameter: a subset of variable 1.2.2. Functions: NNModules: NNModules (torch.nn) is a combination of parameters and functions, and could be interpreted as layers. There some common modules such as convolution layers, linear layers, pooling layers, dropout layers, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Matrox Imaging Library (MIL) 9.0 Update 58
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matrox Imaging Library (MIL) 9.0 Update 58. Release Notes (Whatsnew) September 2012 (c) Copyright Matrox Electronic Systems Ltd., 1992-2012. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information and what's new in processing, display, drivers, Linux, ActiveMIL, and all MIL 9 updates, consult their respective readme files. Main table of contents Section 1 : What's new in Mil 9.0 Update 58 Section 2 : What's new in MIL 9.0 Release 2. Section 3 : What's new in MIL 9.0. Section 4 : Differences between MIL Lite 8.0 and 7.5 Section 5 : Differences between MIL Lite 7.5 and 7.1 Section 6 : Differences between MIL Lite 7.1 and 7.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1: What's new in MIL 9.0 Update 58. Table of Contents for Section 1 1. Overview. 2. Mseq API function definition 2.1 MseqAlloc 2.2 MseqControl 2.3 MseqDefine 2.4 MseqFeed 2.5 MseqFree 2.6 MseqGetHookInfo 2.7 MseqHookFunction 2.8 MseqInquire 2.9 MseqProcess 3. Examples 4. Operating system information 1. Overview. The main goal for MIL 9.0 Update 58 is to add a new module called Mseq, which offers a user-friendly interface for H.264 compression. 2. Mseq API function definition 2.1 MseqAlloc - Synopsis: Allocate a sequence context. - Syntax: MIL_ID MseqAlloc( MIL_ID SystemID, MIL_INT64 SequenceType, MIL_INT64 Operation, MIL_UINT32 OutputFormat, MIL_INT64 InitFlag, MIL_ID* ContextSeqIdPtr) - Parameters: * SystemID: Specifies the identifier of the system on which to allocate the sequence context. This parameter must be given a valid system identifier. * SequenceType: Specifies the type of sequence to allocate: Values: M_DEFAULT - Specifies the sequence as a context in which the related operation should be performed.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing OMB with Python Benchmarks Presentation at MUG ‘21
    MVAPICH2 Meets Python: Enhancing OMB with Python Benchmarks Presentation at MUG ‘2 Nawras Alnaasan Network-Based Computing Laboratory Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering !he #hio State $ni%ersity alnaasan.&'osu.edu O$tline • #S$ (icro Benc"marks )#(B* • +"y ,yt"on- • (,. for ,yt"on • .ntroducing #(B-,y • .nitial /esults • Conclusion !etwork Base" Com#$ting %a&oratory MUG ‘2 2 O)U Micro Benchmarks (OMB+ • #(B is a widely used package to measure performance of (,. operations. • .t helps in optimi0ing (,I applications on different HPC systems. • #1ers a series of benchmarks including but not limited to point-to-point, blocking and non-blocking collecti%es, and one-sided tests. • A large set of options and flags for users to create customi0able tests. • Supports different platforms like /#Cm/CUDA to run on AR(4N5IDIA GPUs. • +ritten in C !etwork Base" Com#$ting %a&oratory MUG ‘2 ( -hy Python? • Second most popular programming language according to the !.#BE inde7 as of August 8021. Adopted from= "ttps=44www.tiobe.com4tiobe-inde74 • 6reat community and support around (achine Learning Big Data and Cloud Computing – (any deep learning frameworks like ,yTorch, !ensor3ow :eras etc. – #ne of the most important tools for data science and analytics. • 6reat ,otential to use (,. and distributed computing tec"niques. !etwork• (any Base" other Com#$ting ,yt"on libraries and frameworks like Sci,y Numpy D<ango etc. %a&oratory MUG ‘2 , -hy Python? 5ery flexible and simplified synta7. Adopted from= !etwork Base" Com#$ting "ttps:44www."ardikp.com489&>4&84?94pyt"on-cpp4 %a&oratory MUG ‘2 / MPI for Python • (,.
    [Show full text]
  • DLL: a Fast Deep Neural Network Library
    Published in Artificial Neural Networks in Pattern Recognition. ANNPR 2018, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11081, which should be cited to refer to this work. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99978-4_4 DLL: A Fast Deep Neural Network Library Baptiste Wicht, Andreas Fischer, and Jean Hennebert 1 HES-SO, University of Applied Science of Western Switzerland 2 University of Fribourg, Switzerland Abstract. Deep Learning Library (DLL) is a library for machine learn- ing with deep neural networks that focuses on speed. It supports feed- forward neural networks such as fully-connected Artificial Neural Net- works (ANNs) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). Our main motivation for this work was to propose and evaluate novel software engineering strategies with potential to accelerate runtime for training and inference. Such strategies are mostly independent of the underlying deep learning algorithms. On three different datasets and for four dif- ferent neural network models, we compared DLL to five popular deep learning libraries. Experimentally, it is shown that the proposed library is systematically and significantly faster on CPU and GPU. In terms of classification performance, similar accuracies as the other libraries are reported. 1 Introduction In recent years, neural networks have regained a large deal of attention with deep learning approaches. Such approaches rely on the use of bigger and deeper networks, typically by using larger input dimensions to incorporate more con- text and by increasing the number of layers to extract information at different levels of granularity. The success of deep learning can be attributed mainly to three factors. First, there is the advent of big data, meaning the availability of larger quantities of training data.
    [Show full text]
  • An FPGA-Accelerated Embedded Convolutional Neural Network
    Master Thesis Report ZynqNet: An FPGA-Accelerated Embedded Convolutional Neural Network (edit) (edit) 1000ch 1000ch FPGA 1000ch Network Analysis Network Analysis 2x512 > 1024 2x512 > 1024 David Gschwend [email protected] SqueezeNet v1.1 b2a ext7 conv10 2x416 > SqueezeNet SqueezeNet v1.1 b2a ext7 conv10 2x416 > SqueezeNet arXiv:2005.06892v1 [cs.CV] 14 May 2020 Supervisors: Emanuel Schmid Felix Eberli Professor: Prof. Dr. Anton Gunzinger August 2016, ETH Zürich, Department of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering Abstract Image Understanding is becoming a vital feature in ever more applications ranging from medical diagnostics to autonomous vehicles. Many applications demand for embedded solutions that integrate into existing systems with tight real-time and power constraints. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) presently achieve record-breaking accuracies in all image understanding benchmarks, but have a very high computational complexity. Embedded CNNs thus call for small and efficient, yet very powerful computing platforms. This master thesis explores the potential of FPGA-based CNN acceleration and demonstrates a fully functional proof-of-concept CNN implementation on a Zynq System-on-Chip. The ZynqNet Embedded CNN is designed for image classification on ImageNet and consists of ZynqNet CNN, an optimized and customized CNN topology, and the ZynqNet FPGA Accelerator, an FPGA-based architecture for its evaluation. ZynqNet CNN is a highly efficient CNN topology. Detailed analysis and optimization of prior topologies using the custom-designed Netscope CNN Analyzer have enabled a CNN with 84.5 % top-5 accuracy at a computational complexity of only 530 million multiply- accumulate operations. The topology is highly regular and consists exclusively of convolu- tional layers, ReLU nonlinearities and one global pooling layer.
    [Show full text]