-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
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
Bring back Python backend based PyTorch backend #117
Conversation
22e5150
to
990aeb8
Compare
990aeb8
to
8d50071
Compare
|
||
|
||
def _get_model_path(config): | ||
filenames = ["model.py", "model.pt"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I am understanding the whole flow correctly:
- The
runtime
flag for python based implementation in Triton core will look formodel.py
(configurable by user, but would typically be calledmodel.py
) in model/version repo, and then backend repo (in that order) - The python runtime for pytorch backend supports loading pytorch NN module style models as a
model.py
file
Assume the following setup:
models/
-- resnet50
-- config.pbtxt # runtime: "model.py"
-- 1/
-- model.py # resnet50 pytorch NN implementation
backends/
-- pytorch/
-- model.py # python-based backend implementation
Since the core looks in model repo first, if you tried to load a pytorch models/resnet50/1/model.py
(nn module file) that uses the Triton python runtime pytorch implementation (/opt/tritonserver/backends/pytorch/model.py
) -- Triton core would probably try to load this models/resnet50/1/model.py
as the backend implementation first and fail, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess this might be the most confusing part. If a model wants to load on top of Python backend, the backend_libdir
and backend_libpath
will initially point to the C++ runtime of the Python backend. After that, the backend_libdir
will be "updated" to point to the Python runtime (i.e. /opt/tritonserver/backends/pytorch/model.py
), without modifying backend_libpath
.
The reason why the "update" logic is always correct is the Python runtime path is always assembled from backend_dir
and model.py
, where backend_dir
always points to /opt/tritonserver/backends/pytorch
, so the eventual backend_libdir
can only be /opt/tritonserver/backends/pytorch/model.py
for example.
However, you are right if the user does not specify the runtime (or filled in by autocomplete), the latter runtime resolution step can find the wrong file as outlined, but this should not be an issue for our backends (vLLM and PyTorch) because the autocomplete will always fill the correct runtime. This will be an issue for custom Python based backends.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should rename the runtime from model.py
to backend.py
to avoid any ambiguity and allow for better search logic, but model.py
is used since vLLM, so it will be a behavioral change if we do so.
Otherwise, we will have to limit the search for Python based runtime to only within backend_dir
(i.e. /opt/tritonserver/backends/pytorch
)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Issue is addressed, with commit up to triton-inference-server/core@f502bfc point
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Try to avoid force pushing if possible, as the commit referenced previously is no longer valid.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you clarify the current behavior now?
For python-based backends, it will only look for model.py
in the backend directory.
For C++ backends, will it still look in (version_dir, model_dir, backend_dir)?
- how does this interact with escape logic?
- can you verify running a custom backend with shared library located in the model folder still works?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For python-based backends, it will only look for model.py in the backend directory.
For C++ backends, will it still look in (version_dir, model_dir, backend_dir)?
Yes.
how does this interact with escape logic?
The backend_libdir
will be one of the (version_dir, model_dir, backend_dir) path. The runtime
is essentially the backend_libname
, which <backend_libdir>/<runtime>
is the backend_libpath
. At the end after everything are determined, there is a one time check to ensure the backend_libpath
is within the backend_libdir
. If the runtime
tries to escape from the backend_libdir
(i.e. runtime = "../my_backend_lib.so" -> backend_libpath = "backend_dir/../my_backend_lib.so"
), this will be caught.
can you verify running a custom backend with shared library located in the model folder still works?
Yes. I think the L0_lifecycle covers such case, and it is part of the CI run. It copies the libtriton_identity.so
into the model folder, see cp libtriton_identity.so models/identity_zero_1_int32/1/.
line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also ran L0_passive_instance on the test container from CI and it passed, which uses a custom C++ backend: https://github.com/triton-inference-server/server/blob/main/qa/L0_passive_instance/models/distributed_int32_int32_int32/config.pbtxt#L28
tools/gen_pb_exec_env.sh
Outdated
conda install -c conda-forge libstdcxx-ng=12 -y | ||
|
||
# install PyTorch | ||
conda install pytorch torchvision torchaudio pytorch-cuda=12.1 -c pytorch -c nvidia -y |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if we don't specify version 12.1
for pytorch-cuda, will it still install the latest stable version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Without specifying version 12.1
for pytorch-cuda worked locally. I am ok with removing the specified version. My only concern is why PyTorch suggests setting pytorch-cuda=12.1
at the first place:
conda install pytorch torchvision torchaudio pytorch-cuda=12.1 -c pytorch -c nvidia
Would it break in the future? Is it only a mean to lock CUDA to 12.1?
https://pytorch.org/get-started/locally/ (Stable (2.1.1) -> Linux -> Conda -> Python -> CUDA 12.1 -> get the command)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
|
||
|
||
def _get_model_path(config): | ||
filenames = ["model.py", "model.pt"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
do we want to support <XXX>.pt2
? i.e result of torch.export
: https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/export.html#serialization
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about we add .pt2
support as a follow-up ticket? It is because I think it depends on torch.export
which is not part of the previous "platform handler", so we do not introduce additional risks for this "bring back platform handler" ticket and get some functionality in sooner than later. (unless .pt2
requires behavioral changes if introduced separately?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Works for me. Can we add this note as a FIXME? relevant ticket is: https://jirasw.nvidia.com/browse/DLIS-5694
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
CMakeLists.txt
Outdated
@@ -504,6 +505,21 @@ install( | |||
${INSTALL_CONFIGDIR} | |||
) | |||
|
|||
if (${TRITON_PYTORCH_ENABLE_PYTHON_RUNTIME}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this mean that we'll include the runtime by default? I believe the environment size could be significant since it contains CUDA, PyTorch, etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, but the behavior can be easily changed. The current size of the conda pack is 3.00 GB.
src/model.py
Outdated
# triton_python_backend_utils is available in every Triton Python model. You | ||
# need to use this module to create inference requests and responses. It also | ||
# contains some utility functions for extracting information from model_config | ||
# and converting Triton input/output types to numpy types. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's remove the comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Removed: Remove legacy comment
…kend into jacky-python-based-pytorch
…kend into jacky-python-based-pytorch
3d6d797
to
9aa6b41
Compare
model_repository/ | ||
`-- model_directory | ||
|-- 1 | ||
| |-- model.py |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is probably a little bit misleading since we don't always require both model.py
and model.pt
(e.g., if torchscript is provided only model.pt
is required as you mentioned).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good spotting! I created different sections for PyTorch 2.0 and TorchScript model layout. Clarify model layout between PyTorch and TorchScript
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This PR generally looks good to me - just looking for some clarifications to close this thread: https://github.com/triton-inference-server/pytorch_backend/pull/117/files#r1447954567
Related PRs:
Add Python backend based PyTorch runtime. Add script to build Conda-Pack environment.