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

Add GNN training benchmark #359

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 28, 2024
Merged

Conversation

drcanchi
Copy link
Contributor

@drcanchi drcanchi commented Mar 6, 2024

No description provided.

@drcanchi drcanchi requested review from a team as code owners March 6, 2024 21:32
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2024

MLCommons CLA bot All contributors have signed the MLCommons CLA ✍️ ✅

CHECK: " v['value'] > 0"

- KEY:
NAME: opt_name
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In the reference code, the optimizer name is not reported, but we do have a SEED exported at this line. Should we report the optimizer name as well in the reference code? And should we also check if the seed is included in the log as well?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should report optimizer name in reference. The seed check is part of package_checker and we don't need to include it here.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added optimizer name in reference.

POST: " enqueue_config('training_4.0.0/closed_{}.yaml'.format(v['value'])) "

- KEY:
NAME: gradient_accumulation_steps
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We actually do not have this key in the reference implementation (mllog.constants.GRADIENT_ACCUMULATION_STEPS). Should we also include this in the reference branch? Or is it okay for us to directly remove this in the closed_common.yaml checker?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's include gradient acccumulation in reference, as we should not be modifying the common yaml.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Gradient accumulation is included in reference.

@mrmhodak
Copy link

LGTM

@nv-rborkar
Copy link
Contributor

@drcanchi please resolve the conflicts so that we can merge. Thanks!

@hiwotadese hiwotadese merged commit 8510e2b into mlcommons:master Mar 28, 2024
1 check passed
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 28, 2024
@drcanchi drcanchi deleted the gnn_logging_update branch March 28, 2024 15:55
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants