{devel}[fosscuda/2019b] PyTorch v1.6.0 w/ Python 3.7.4 by Flamefire · Pull Request #11041 · easybuilders/easybuild-easyconfigs

Flamefire · 2020-07-30T08:18:32Z

Requires add custom easyblock for PyTorch easybuild-easyblocks#2104
Requires explicitely enable/disable CUDA options in PyTorch easyblock + fix download check in sanity check + fix for disabling of *NNPACK on POWER systems easybuild-easyblocks#2164

boegel · 2020-08-17T12:36:21Z

@Flamefire I see one failing test:

======================================================================
ERROR: test_set_affinity_in_worker_init (__main__.TestSetAffinity)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "test_dataloader.py", line 2004, in test_set_affinity_in_worker_init
    for sample in dataloader:
  File "/tmp/eb-qcz48h81/tmposm2a_uv/lib/python3.7/site-packages/torch/utils/data/dataloader.py", line 363, in __next__
    data = self._next_data()
  File "/tmp/eb-qcz48h81/tmposm2a_uv/lib/python3.7/site-packages/torch/utils/data/dataloader.py", line 989, in _next_data
    return self._process_data(data)
  File "/tmp/eb-qcz48h81/tmposm2a_uv/lib/python3.7/site-packages/torch/utils/data/dataloader.py", line 1014, in _process_data
    data.reraise()
  File "/tmp/eb-qcz48h81/tmposm2a_uv/lib/python3.7/site-packages/torch/_utils.py", line 395, in reraise
    raise self.exc_type(msg)
OSError: Caught OSError in DataLoader worker process 0.
Original Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/tmp/eb-qcz48h81/tmposm2a_uv/lib/python3.7/site-packages/torch/utils/data/_utils/worker.py", line 142, in _worker_loop
    init_fn(worker_id)
  File "test_dataloader.py", line 1992, in worker_set_affinity
    os.sched_setaffinity(0, [2])
OSError: [Errno 22] Invalid argument

Flamefire · 2020-08-17T12:42:30Z

No idea. os.sched_setaffinity(0, [2]) looks like a valid call. Or wait: Do you happen to have only 1 CPU (or less than 3) allocated? Nice PyTorch! Really nice!

Guess we should disable this test then?

boegel · 2020-08-18T12:00:17Z

No idea. os.sched_setaffinity(0, [2]) looks like a valid call. Or wait: Do you happen to have only 1 CPU (or less than 3) allocated? Nice PyTorch! Really nice!

Guess we should disable this test then?

I was tested in a Slurm job, so definitely with restricted access to cores, but I certainly had more than 1 core...
Or do you mean sockets?

Flamefire · 2020-08-18T12:05:45Z

According to https://docs.python.org/3/library/os.html#os.sched_setaffinity it is CPUs. So no idea... Maybe because you don't have access to CPU 2?

boegel · 2020-08-18T13:59:31Z

Tried again in a Slurm job with 8 cores (out of 36 available, in a 2-socket 18-core proc system), now test_set_affinity_in_worker_init passed. But another test failed:

======================================================================
FAIL: test_lstm (quantization.test_backward_compatibility.TestSerialization)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/tmp/eb-1hbt9lal/tmpiuhh9sss/lib/python3.7/site-packages/torch/testing/_internal/common_quantized.py", line 124, in test_fn
    qfunction(*args, **kwargs)
  File "/tmp/vsc40023/easybuild_build/PyTorch/1.6.0/fosscuda-2019b-Python-3.7.4/pytorch-1.6.0/test/quantization/test_backward_compatibility.py", line 132, in test_lstm
    self._test_op(mod, input_size=[4, 4, 3], input_quantized=False, generate=False, new_zipfile_serialization=True)
  File "/tmp/vsc40023/easybuild_build/PyTorch/1.6.0/fosscuda-2019b-Python-3.7.4/pytorch-1.6.0/test/quantization/test_backward_compatibility.py", line 68, in _test_op
    self.assertEqual(qmodule(input_tensor), expected, atol=prec)
  File "/tmp/eb-1hbt9lal/tmpiuhh9sss/lib/python3.7/site-packages/torch/testing/_internal/common_utils.py", line 1111, in assertEqual
    exact_dtype=exact_dtype, exact_device=exact_device)
  File "/tmp/eb-1hbt9lal/tmpiuhh9sss/lib/python3.7/site-packages/torch/testing/_internal/common_utils.py", line 1085, in assertEqual
    self.assertTrue(result, msg=msg)
AssertionError: False is not true : Tensors failed to compare as equal! With rtol=1.3e-06 and atol=1e-05, found 13 element(s) (out of 112) whose difference(s) exceeded the margin of error (including 0 nan comparisons). The greatest difference was 0.9640435565029293 (4.41188467448228e-06 vs. 0.9640479683876038), which occurred at index (3, 0, 6).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 276 tests in 415.229s

FAILED (failures=1, skipped=7)

Flamefire · 2020-08-18T14:52:34Z

-.- No idea. Another test to exclude I think. Reported it to pytorch: pytorch/pytorch#43209

terjekv · 2020-08-21T07:28:23Z

Test report by @terjekv
FAILED
Build succeeded for 0 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
ninhursaga.uio.no - Linux RHEL 8.2, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver 4216 CPU @ 2.10GHz, Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/34bfbc21291ef5224ac11406afc1ad84 for a full test report.

Flamefire · 2020-08-21T08:14:41Z

@terjekv Same issue as #11041 (comment)

Not sure what went wrong there and hard to investigate as I'm not seeing it on any of our systems... Looks bad to me but don't know what to do about it except disabling the whole test suite this test is in

terjekv · 2020-08-21T09:58:10Z

Yeah, no idea either. I have a user request for 1.6.0 as 1.4.0 has some bug that keeps killing his code. I'll strip the test in question and see what comes out of that, and point out to the user that save/load should be verified before using it.

terjekv · 2020-08-22T00:22:58Z

Obviously, skipping the quantization tests makes the EC pass, by adding the following to excluded_tests:

        # Save/load issue with test_lstm: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/43209
        'test_quantization',

Flamefire · 2020-08-28T11:26:38Z

@terjekv Added that although I don't feel comfortable doing so. So at least added a dangerous sounding comment...

Co-authored-by: Kenneth Hoste <kenneth.hoste@ugent.be>

Flamefire · 2020-09-07T16:15:21Z

Test report by @Flamefire
FAILED
Build succeeded for 0 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
taurusml8 - Linux RHEL 7.6, POWER, 8335-GTX, Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/7f87f8cec657943cf2fb8aab7a840a93 for a full test report.

Flamefire · 2020-09-07T16:59:52Z

Test report by @Flamefire
FAILED
Build succeeded for 0 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
taurusml8 - Linux RHEL 7.6, POWER, 8335-GTX, Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/cab0461dfaee9afd4bcff3d23a23192a for a full test report.

Flamefire · 2020-09-08T17:03:43Z

Test report by @Flamefire
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
taurusml24 - Linux RHEL 7.6, POWER, 8335-GTX, Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/b2cefcd7058e8bc13b389e3931484abf for a full test report.

Flamefire · 2020-09-08T19:16:01Z

Test report by @Flamefire
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
taurusa7 - Linux centos linux 7.7.1908, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2603 v4 @ 1.70GHz, Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/f875edcd2065d4dd0e8dde317d52b378 for a full test report.

boegel · 2020-09-08T20:32:25Z

@boegelbot please test @ generoso

boegelbot · 2020-09-08T20:35:08Z

@boegel: Request for testing this PR well received on generoso

PR test command 'EB_PR=11041 EB_ARGS= /apps/slurm/default/bin/sbatch --job-name test_PR_11041 ~/boegelbot/eb_from_pr_upload_generoso.sh' executed!

exit code: 0
output:

Submitted batch job 5275

Test results coming soon (I hope)...

Details

- notification for comment with ID 689119645 processed

Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me,
it is of no use to you (unless you think I have a bug, which I don't).

boegelbot · 2020-09-08T23:22:02Z

Test report by @boegelbot
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
generoso-x-1 - Linux centos linux 8.2.2004, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2667 v3 @ 3.20GHz (haswell), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/590acb67c77383e6839e3c896a7a5c1b for a full test report.

boegel · 2020-09-09T03:43:20Z

Test report by @boegel
FAILED
Build succeeded for 0 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
node3415.kirlia.os - Linux centos linux 7.8.2003, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6240 CPU @ 2.60GHz (cascadelake), Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/a27f46dda95db5c8a6ebef4b5c146093 for a full test report.

boegel · 2020-09-09T07:00:55Z

@boegelbot please test @ generoso

boegel · 2020-09-09T09:32:15Z

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
node3404.kirlia.os - Linux centos linux 7.8.2003, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6240 CPU @ 2.60GHz (cascadelake), Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/0cd5a2e02a4990aaf96d6e9c4227520c for a full test report.

boegelbot · 2020-09-09T10:00:14Z

@boegel: Request for testing this PR well received on generoso

PR test command 'EB_PR=11041 EB_ARGS= /apps/slurm/default/bin/sbatch --job-name test_PR_11041 ~/boegelbot/eb_from_pr_upload_generoso.sh' executed!

exit code: 0
output:

Submitted batch job 5535

Test results coming soon (I hope)...

Details

- notification for comment with ID 689351336 processed

Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me,
it is of no use to you (unless you think I have a bug, which I don't).

boegel · 2020-09-09T10:38:33Z

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
node3300.joltik.os - Linux centos linux 7.8.2003, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6242 CPU @ 2.80GHz (cascadelake), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/82356d0a556c41096b59816707abfa2a for a full test report.

boegelbot · 2020-09-09T12:31:04Z

Test report by @boegelbot
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
generoso-x-1 - Linux centos linux 8.2.2004, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2667 v3 @ 3.20GHz (haswell), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/49ccdfee7e6b8973866e84d6e431f455 for a full test report.

boegel · 2020-09-09T12:40:46Z

Going in, thanks @Flamefire!

Flamefire · 2020-09-14T08:50:16Z

Test report by @Flamefire
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
taurusml23 - Linux RHEL 7.6, POWER, 8335-GTX, Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/f937a2145648cbf296d6e9965b5c628a for a full test report.

boegel requested changes Aug 17, 2020

View reviewed changes

Comment thread easybuild/easyconfigs/p/PyTorch/PyTorch-1.6.0-fosscuda-2019b-Python-3.7.4.eb Outdated

Comment thread easybuild/easyconfigs/p/PyTorch/PyTorch-check-cpp-extension.py Outdated

boegel added the update label Aug 17, 2020

boegel added this to the next release (4.2.3?) milestone Aug 17, 2020

boegel changed the title ~~Add PyTorch-1.6.0-fosscuda-2019b-Python-3.7.4~~ {devel}[fosscuda/2019b] PyTorch v1.6.0 w/ Python 3.7.4 Aug 17, 2020

Flamefire force-pushed the PyTorch16 branch 2 times, most recently from 504e953 to c99a6d7 Compare September 7, 2020 15:13

Flamefire and others added 4 commits September 7, 2020 17:32

Add PyTorch-1.6.0-fosscuda-2019b-Python-3.7.4

22e20d0

Add additional tbb checksum

fa0d4af

Co-authored-by: Kenneth Hoste <kenneth.hoste@ugent.be>

Exclude test_quantization and update comments

481b889

Add patch for not requiring PyBind11 download

a3ec4ff

Flamefire force-pushed the PyTorch16 branch from 6a48fff to a3ec4ff Compare September 7, 2020 15:33

Remove %(version)s from the patches

a4e04e5

easybuilders deleted a comment from boegelbot Sep 8, 2020

Flamefire force-pushed the PyTorch16 branch from 8e438f6 to b8eaec3 Compare September 9, 2020 06:53

Add patch for test_dataloader

8111313

Flamefire force-pushed the PyTorch16 branch from b8eaec3 to 8111313 Compare September 9, 2020 06:56

easybuilders deleted a comment from boegelbot Sep 9, 2020

boegel approved these changes Sep 9, 2020

View reviewed changes

boegel merged commit 372e0f3 into easybuilders:develop Sep 9, 2020

Flamefire deleted the PyTorch16 branch September 9, 2020 13:08

Flamefire mentioned this pull request Sep 14, 2020

{devel}[foss/2019b] PyTorch v1.6.0 w/ Python 3.7.4 #11251

Merged

Flamefire mentioned this pull request Nov 2, 2020

test_lstm of quantization.test_backward_compatibility.TestSerialization fails pytorch/pytorch#43209

Closed

Conversation

Flamefire commented Jul 30, 2020 • edited by boegel Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

boegel commented Aug 17, 2020

Uh oh!

Flamefire commented Aug 17, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

boegel commented Aug 18, 2020

Uh oh!

Flamefire commented Aug 18, 2020

Uh oh!

boegel commented Aug 18, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Flamefire commented Aug 18, 2020

Uh oh!

terjekv commented Aug 21, 2020

Uh oh!

Flamefire commented Aug 21, 2020

Uh oh!

terjekv commented Aug 21, 2020

Uh oh!

terjekv commented Aug 22, 2020

Uh oh!

Flamefire commented Aug 28, 2020

Uh oh!

Flamefire commented Sep 7, 2020

Uh oh!

Flamefire commented Sep 7, 2020

Uh oh!

Flamefire commented Sep 8, 2020

Uh oh!

Flamefire commented Sep 8, 2020

Uh oh!

boegel commented Sep 8, 2020

Uh oh!

boegelbot commented Sep 8, 2020

Uh oh!

boegelbot commented Sep 8, 2020

Uh oh!

boegel commented Sep 9, 2020

Uh oh!

boegel commented Sep 9, 2020

Uh oh!

boegel commented Sep 9, 2020

Uh oh!

boegelbot commented Sep 9, 2020

Uh oh!

boegel commented Sep 9, 2020

Uh oh!

boegelbot commented Sep 9, 2020

Uh oh!

boegel commented Sep 9, 2020

Uh oh!

Flamefire commented Sep 14, 2020

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Flamefire commented Jul 30, 2020 •

edited by boegel

Loading

Flamefire commented Aug 17, 2020 •

edited

Loading

boegel commented Aug 18, 2020 •

edited

Loading