Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Torch Elastic DDP DeadLock bug fix #8655

Merged
merged 24 commits into from
Aug 2, 2021
Merged

Torch Elastic DDP DeadLock bug fix #8655

merged 24 commits into from
Aug 2, 2021

Conversation

tchaton
Copy link
Contributor

@tchaton tchaton commented Jul 30, 2021

What does this PR do?

This PR introduces some changes to better support multi node dead lock mechanism prevention when processes are created by the cluster.

This works.

MASTER_ADDR="localhost" MASTER_PORT=1234 WORLD_SIZE=2 LOCAL_RANK=0 python tests/plugins/environments/torch_elastic_deadlock.py
MASTER_ADDR="localhost" MASTER_PORT=1234 WORLD_SIZE=2 LOCAL_RANK=1 python tests/plugins/environments/torch_elastic_deadlock.p

TorchElastic detects rank 1 as Terminated as expected. Therefore, rank 0 has succeeded and rank 1 failed. Therefore the run is declared as failed. Depending on use-case, this can be a wrong behaviour.

python -m torch.distributed.run --nproc_per_node=2 --max_restarts 0 tests/plugins/environments/torch_elastic_deadlock.py

TorchElastic should expose a kill function, so it registers that we manual kill a process.

from torch.distributed.elastic.utils import elatic_kill

Does your PR introduce any breaking changes? If yes, please list them.

Before submitting

  • Was this discussed/approved via a GitHub issue? (not for typos and docs)
  • Did you read the contributor guideline, Pull Request section?
  • Did you make sure your PR does only one thing, instead of bundling different changes together?
  • Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes? (if necessary)
  • Did you write any new necessary tests? (not for typos and docs)
  • Did you verify new and existing tests pass locally with your changes?
  • Did you list all the breaking changes introduced by this pull request?
  • Did you update the CHANGELOG? (not for typos, docs, test updates, or internal minor changes/refactorings)

PR review

Anyone in the community is welcome to review the PR.
Before you start reviewing make sure you have read Review guidelines. In short, see the following bullet-list:

  • Is this pull request ready for review? (if not, please submit in draft mode)
  • Check that all items from Before submitting are resolved
  • Make sure the title is self-explanatory and the description concisely explains the PR
  • Add labels and milestones (and optionally projects) to the PR so it can be classified

Did you have fun?

Make sure you had fun coding 🙃

@pep8speaks
Copy link

pep8speaks commented Jul 30, 2021

Hello @tchaton! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2021-08-02 16:38:39 UTC

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 30, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #8655 (fd52122) into master (85bba06) will decrease coverage by 4%.
The diff coverage is 73%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #8655    +/-   ##
=======================================
- Coverage      93%     89%    -4%     
=======================================
  Files         168     167     -1     
  Lines       13984   13970    -14     
=======================================
- Hits        12948   12397   -551     
- Misses       1036    1573   +537     

@tchaton
Copy link
Contributor Author

tchaton commented Aug 1, 2021

Hey @ananthsub.

I will add a Multi Node test running on Grid using Torch Elastic soon, so our support for Torch Elastic is higher.

Best,
T.C

@awaelchli awaelchli added bug Something isn't working distributed Generic distributed-related topic labels Aug 2, 2021
@awaelchli awaelchli added this to the v1.4.x milestone Aug 2, 2021
@mergify mergify bot added the has conflicts label Aug 2, 2021
@mergify mergify bot removed the has conflicts label Aug 2, 2021
@mergify mergify bot added the ready PRs ready to be merged label Aug 2, 2021
Copy link
Contributor

@SeanNaren SeanNaren left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

More important to get this in even if there is no test atm I think

@tchaton tchaton enabled auto-merge (squash) August 2, 2021 16:55
@tchaton tchaton merged commit 9e61de2 into master Aug 2, 2021
@tchaton tchaton deleted the debug_deadlock branch August 2, 2021 19:48
awaelchli pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2021
awaelchli pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2021
lexierule pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working distributed Generic distributed-related topic ready PRs ready to be merged
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Errors are masked with DDP when processes are created external to lightning
6 participants