is-instance check to determine the type of a plugin for teardown decision #8741
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
awaelchli
changed the title
awaelchli
changed the title
awaelchli
changed the title
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8741 +/- ##
======================================
- Coverage 93% 93% -0%
======================================
Files 169 169
Lines 14071 14070 -1
======================================
- Hits 13040 13039 -1
Misses 1031 1031 |
ananthsub
reviewed
Aug 5, 2021
| @@ -947,7 +946,7 @@ def _run(self, model: "pl.LightningModule") -> Optional[Union[_EVALUATE_OUTPUT, | |||
|
|
|||
| # teardown if necessary (similar calls for spawn plugins are excluded as they have | |||
| # been included at the end of `new_process` functions) | |||
| if self._distrib_type not in DistributedType.interactive_compatible_types(): | |||
| if not isinstance(self.training_type_plugin, DDPSpawnPlugin): | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- should we add a test to confirm DDP spawn and other parallel plugins all work as expected to avoid potential regressions here in the future?
- for custom plugins, this doesn't generalize unless they all extend DDP Spawn. should the plugin denote that it uses multiprocessing spawn method to create new processes, and that we need this in order to determine the appropriate teardown?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes it does not generalize to plugins that do spawn but are not subclassing our ddp spawn plugin, but this was a tradeoff introduced in #8685. However, the change in this PR covers the case of plugins that don't spawn and therefore get a teardown at the right place.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Definitely, agreed that we should fix this first. I meant the custom plug-in support as a follow up beyond the scope of this PR
ananthsub
approved these changes
Aug 5, 2021
carmocca
approved these changes
Aug 5, 2021
four4fish
pushed a commit
to four4fish/pytorch-lightning
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 16, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do?
Addresses a comment on recently merged PR #8685 (comment) which got missed/misinterpreted regarding the check for a type of plugin.
The plugin types classified as "interactive_compatible_types" do not relate directly to the plugin types that require a special place for teardown. These are the plugins that use the multiprocessing "spawn" method to create new processes but the DP plugin is NOT of this type and with the recent changes now does not have a teardown anymore.
Also, with #8685 custom accelerators would not receive a teardown.
This PR fixes that.
NOTE: labelling this as 1.5 bugfix as #8685 was also labelled this way.
Before submitting
PR review
Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed.
Before you start reviewing make sure you have read Review guidelines. In short, see the following bullet-list:
Did you have fun?
I made sure I had fun coding 🙃