I'm using Google colab TPU to train a simple Keras model. Removing the distributed strategy and running the same program on the CPU is much faster than TPU. How is that possible?
import timeit
import os
import tensorflow as tf
from sklearn.datasets import load_iris
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from tensorflow.keras.models import Sequential
from tensorflow.keras.layers import Dense
from tensorflow.keras.optimizers import Adam
# Load Iris dataset
x = load_iris().data
y = load_iris().target
# Split data to train and validation set
x_train, x_val, y_train, y_val = train_test_split(x, y, test_size=0.30, shuffle=False)
# Convert train data type to use TPU
x_train = x_train.astype('float32')
x_val = x_val.astype('float32')
# Specify a distributed strategy to use TPU
resolver = tf.contrib.cluster_resolver.TPUClusterResolver(tpu='grpc://' + os.environ['COLAB_TPU_ADDR'])
tf.contrib.distribute.initialize_tpu_system(resolver)
strategy = tf.contrib.distribute.TPUStrategy(resolver)
# Use the strategy to create and compile a Keras model
with strategy.scope():
model = Sequential()
model.add(Dense(32, input_shape=(4,), activation=tf.nn.relu, name="relu"))
model.add(Dense(3, activation=tf.nn.softmax, name="softmax"))
model.compile(optimizer=Adam(learning_rate=0.1), loss='logcosh')
start = timeit.default_timer()
# Fit the Keras model on the dataset
model.fit(x_train, y_train, batch_size=20, epochs=20, validation_data=[x_val, y_val], verbose=0, steps_per_epoch=2)
print('\nTime: ', timeit.default_timer() - start)
Thank you for your question.
I think what's happening here is a matter of overhead -- since the TPU runs on a separate VM (accessible at grpc://$COLAB_TPU_ADDR), each call to run a model on the TPU incurs some amount of overhead as the client (the Colab notebook in this case) sends a graph to the TPU, which is then compiled and run. This overhead is small compared to the time it takes to run e.g. ResNet50 for one epoch, but large compared to run a simple model like the one in your example.
For best results on TPU we recommend using tf.data.Dataset. I updated your example for TensorFlow 2.2:
%tensorflow_version 2.x
import timeit
import os
import tensorflow as tf
from sklearn.datasets import load_iris
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from tensorflow.keras.models import Sequential
from tensorflow.keras.layers import Dense
from tensorflow.keras.optimizers import Adam
# Load Iris dataset
x = load_iris().data
y = load_iris().target
# Split data to train and validation set
x_train, x_val, y_train, y_val = train_test_split(x, y, test_size=0.30, shuffle=False)
# Convert train data type to use TPU
x_train = x_train.astype('float32')
x_val = x_val.astype('float32')
resolver = tf.distribute.cluster_resolver.TPUClusterResolver(tpu='grpc://' + os.environ['COLAB_TPU_ADDR'])
tf.config.experimental_connect_to_cluster(resolver)
tf.tpu.experimental.initialize_tpu_system(resolver)
strategy = tf.distribute.experimental.TPUStrategy(resolver)
train_dataset = tf.data.Dataset.from_tensor_slices((x_train, y_train)).batch(20)
val_dataset = tf.data.Dataset.from_tensor_slices((x_val, y_val)).batch(20)
# Use the strategy to create and compile a Keras model
with strategy.scope():
model = Sequential()
model.add(Dense(32, input_shape=(4,), activation=tf.nn.relu, name="relu"))
model.add(Dense(3, activation=tf.nn.softmax, name="softmax"))
model.compile(optimizer=Adam(learning_rate=0.1), loss='logcosh')
start = timeit.default_timer()
# Fit the Keras model on the dataset
model.fit(train_dataset, epochs=20, validation_data=val_dataset)
print('\nTime: ', timeit.default_timer() - start)
This takes about 30 seconds to run, compared to ~1.3 seconds to run on CPU. We can substantially reduce the overhead here by repeating the dataset and running one long epoch rather than several small ones. I replaced the dataset setup with this:
train_dataset = tf.data.Dataset.from_tensor_slices((x_train, y_train)).repeat(20).batch(20)
val_dataset = tf.data.Dataset.from_tensor_slices((x_val, y_val)).batch(20)
And replaced the fit call with this:
model.fit(train_dataset, validation_data=val_dataset)
This brings the runtime down to about 6 seconds for me. This is still slower than CPU, but that's not surprising for such a small model that can easily be run locally. In general, you'll see more benefit from using TPUs with larger models. I recommend looking through TensorFlow's official TPU guide, which presents a larger image classification model for the MNIST dataset.
This is probably due to the batch size you are using. In comparison to CPU and GPU, the training speed of a TPU is highly dependent on the batch size. Check the following site for more information:
https://cloud.google.com/tpu/docs/performance-guide
The Cloud TPU hardware is different from CPUs and GPUs. At a high
level, CPUs can be characterized as having a low number of high
performing threads. GPUs can be characterized as having a very high
number of low performing threads. A Cloud TPU, with its 128 x 128
matrix unit, can be thought of as either a single, very powerful
thread, which can perform 16K ops per cycle, or 128 x 128 tiny, simple
threads that are connected in pipeline fashion. Correspondingly, when
addressing memory, multiples of 8 (floats) are desirable, as well as
multiples of 128 for operations targeting the matrix unit.
This means that the batch size should be a multiple of 128, depending on the number of TPUs. Google Colab provides 8 TPUs to you, so in the best case you should select a batch size of 128 * 8 = 1024.
Related
Here is my code for distributed training via spark-tensorflow-distributor that uses tensorflow MultiWorkerMirroredStrategy to train using multiple servers
https://github.com/tensorflow/ecosystem/blob/master/spark/spark-tensorflow-distributor/spark_tensorflow_distributor/mirrored_strategy_runner.py
import sys
from spark_tensorflow_distributor import MirroredStrategyRunner
import mlflow.keras
mlflow.keras.autolog()
mlflow.log_param("learning_rate", 0.001)
import tensorflow as tf
import time
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.datasets import load_breast_cancer
def train():
strategy = tf.distribute.experimental.MultiWorkerMirroredStrategy()
#tf.distribute.experimental.CollectiveCommunication.NCCL
model = None
with strategy.scope():
data = load_breast_cancer()
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(data.data, data.target, test_size=0.3)
N, D = X_train.shape # number of observation and variables
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
scaler = StandardScaler()
X_train = scaler.fit_transform(X_train)
X_test = scaler.transform(X_test)
model = tf.keras.models.Sequential([
tf.keras.layers.Input(shape=(D,)),
tf.keras.layers.Dense(1, activation='sigmoid') # use sigmoid function for every epochs
])
model.compile(optimizer='adam', # use adaptive momentum
loss='binary_crossentropy',
metrics=['accuracy'])
# Train the Model
r = model.fit(X_train, y_train, validation_data=(X_test, y_test))
mlflow.keras.log_model(model, "mymodel")
MirroredStrategyRunner(num_slots=4, use_custom_strategy=True).run(train)
I realize that saving via mlflow.keras.log_model produces 4 models in databrick experiments,
each of the 4 models is not a good predictor
if I change num_slots from 4 to 1, there is only 1 model saved in databrick experiment and the model is a good predictor during inference
My question is
Do I need an extra step to merge the 4 models together to create 1 model that can predict as good as num_slot = 1? Or am I doing something wrong? I was expecting only the chief node saving models
So, you do not want to call log_model in all 4 of the Tensorflow workers. You want to log it in 1 of them. I believe you would use https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/distribute/get_replica_context to figure out which worker you are, and perhaps only log if you are worker 0. That's what I do when using Horovod for a similar purpose.
You do not merge the models; they are the same model in all 4 replicas. That's the point of what this is doing.
If the model is 'worse' than with 1 replica, I would suspect other subtler issues are at play. For example, with 4 workers, your batch size has changed unless you compensate for that. See https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/distribute/multi_worker_with_keras#train_the_model for a discussion.
I am trying to solve an exercise from a machine learning book, where a classifier should be trained on the cifar10 dataset using tensorflow and keras. I have attached a code example. The code is running in a Jupyter notebook inside PyCharm.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import matplotlib as mpl
import time
import os
import tensorflow as tf
from tensorflow import keras
tf.random.set_seed(42)
np.random.seed(42)
def build_model():
# Build a model as instructed
model = keras.Sequential()
model.add(keras.layers.Flatten(input_shape=[32, 32, 3]))
for i in range(20):
model.add(keras.layers.Dense(100,
activation=keras.activations.elu,
kernel_initializer=tf.keras.initializers.HeNormal))
model.add(keras.layers.Dense(10, activation=keras.activations.softmax))
return model
model = build_model()
# Load the CIFAR10 image dataset
cifar10 = keras.datasets.cifar10.load_data()
X_train = cifar10[0][0] / 255.
X_test = cifar10[1][0] / 255.
y_train = cifar10[0][1]
y_test = cifar10[1][1]
print(X_train.max())
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
# Split the data
X_train, X_valid, y_train, y_valid = train_test_split(X_train, y_train, test_size=0.1, shuffle= True)
model = build_model()
root_logdir = os.path.join(os.curdir, "my_logs_11-8")
def get_run_logdir():
run_id = time.strftime("run_%Y_%m_%d_%H_%M_%S")
return os.path.join(root_logdir, run_id)
run_logdir = get_run_logdir()
tensorboard_cb = keras.callbacks.TensorBoard(run_logdir)
model.compile(optimizer=keras.optimizers.Nadam(lr=5e-5), loss="sparse_categorical_crossentropy")
history = model.fit(X_train, y_train, epochs=100,
validation_data=(X_valid, y_valid),
callbacks=[tensorboard_cb],
batch_size=32)
I am already running into problems here:
I do not get past a few epochs (10-20), because with each epoch, the python process takes up more and more memory. My machine has 16 GB, of which 12 GB are usually free. When memory is full, my IDE (PyCharm) crashes and the python process is killed. Is that due to a memory leak? What can I do to fix it?
For each epoch, keras measures an estimated time of how long that epoch took. However, the time measured is much smaller than walltime (24s/epoch vs. ~60s/epoch). The book I am following seems to reach much faster training on a much weaker machine. How can this be?
I am facing a strange problem when adversarially training a resnet-50, and I am not sure whether is's a logical error, or a bug somewhere in the code/libraries.
I am adversarially training a resnet-50 thats loaded from Keras, using the FastGradientMethod from cleverhans, and expecting the adversarial accuracy to rise at least above 90% (probably 99.x%). The training algorithm, training- and attack-params should be visible in the code.
The problem, as already stated in the title is, that the accuracy is stuck at 5% after training ~3000 of 39002 training inputs in the first epoch. (GermanTrafficSignRecognitionBenchmark, GTSRB).
When training without and adversariy loss function, the accuracy does not get stuck after 3000 samples, but continues to rise > 0.95 in the first epoch.
When substituting the network with a lenet-5, alexnet and vgg19, the code works as expected, and an accuracy absolutely comparabele to the non-adversarial, categorical_corssentropy lossfunction is achieved. I've also tried running the procedure using solely tf-cpu and different versions of tensorflow, the result is always the same.
Code for obtaining ResNet-50:
def build_resnet50(num_classes, img_size):
from tensorflow.keras.applications import ResNet50
from tensorflow.keras import Model
from tensorflow.keras.layers import Dense, Flatten
resnet = ResNet50(weights='imagenet', include_top=False, input_shape=img_size)
x = Flatten(input_shape=resnet.output.shape)(resnet.output)
x = Dense(1024, activation='sigmoid')(x)
predictions = Dense(num_classes, activation='softmax', name='pred')(x)
model = Model(inputs=[resnet.input], outputs=[predictions])
return model
Training:
def lr_schedule(epoch):
# decreasing learning rate depending on epoch
return 0.001 * (0.1 ** int(epoch / 10))
def train_model(model, xtrain, ytrain, xtest, ytest, lr=0.001, batch_size=32,
epochs=10, result_folder=""):
from cleverhans.attacks import FastGradientMethod
from cleverhans.utils_keras import KerasModelWrapper
import tensorflow as tf
from tensorflow.keras.optimizers import SGD
from tensorflow.keras.callbacks import LearningRateScheduler, ModelCheckpoint
sgd = SGD(lr=lr, decay=1e-6, momentum=0.9, nesterov=True)
model(model.input)
wrap = KerasModelWrapper(model)
sess = tf.compat.v1.keras.backend.get_session()
fgsm = FastGradientMethod(wrap, sess=sess)
fgsm_params = {'eps': 0.01,
'clip_min': 0.,
'clip_max': 1.}
loss = get_adversarial_loss(model, fgsm, fgsm_params)
model.compile(loss=loss, optimizer=sgd, metrics=['accuracy'])
model.fit(xtrain, ytrain,
batch_size=batch_size,
validation_data=(xtest, ytest),
epochs=epochs,
callbacks=[LearningRateScheduler(lr_schedule)])
Loss-function:
def get_adversarial_loss(model, fgsm, fgsm_params):
def adv_loss(y, preds):
import tensorflow as tf
tf.keras.backend.set_learning_phase(False) #turn off dropout during input gradient calculation, to avoid unconnected gradients
# Cross-entropy on the legitimate examples
cross_ent = tf.keras.losses.categorical_crossentropy(y, preds)
# Generate adversarial examples
x_adv = fgsm.generate(model.input, **fgsm_params)
# Consider the attack to be constant
x_adv = tf.stop_gradient(x_adv)
# Cross-entropy on the adversarial examples
preds_adv = model(x_adv)
cross_ent_adv = tf.keras.losses.categorical_crossentropy(y, preds_adv)
tf.keras.backend.set_learning_phase(True) #turn back on
return 0.5 * cross_ent + 0.5 * cross_ent_adv
return adv_loss
Versions used:
tf+tf-gpu: 1.14.0
keras: 2.3.1
cleverhans: > 3.0.1 - latest version pulled from github
It is a side-effect of the way we estimate the moving averages on BatchNormalization.
The mean and variance of the training data that you used are different from the ones of the dataset used to train the ResNet50. Because the momentum on the BatchNormalization has a default value of 0.99, with only 10 iterations it does not converge quickly enough to the correct values for the moving mean and variance. This is not obvious during training when the learning_phase is 1 because BN uses the mean/variance of the batch. Nevertheless when we set learning_phase to 0, the incorrect mean/variance values which are learned during training significantly affect the accuracy.
You can fix this problem by below approachs:
More iterations
Reduce the size of the batch from 32 to 16(to perform more updates per epoch) and increase the number of epochs from 10 to 250. This way the moving average and variance will converge to the correct values.
Change the momentum of BatchNormalization
Keep the number of iterations fixed but change the momentum of the BatchNormalization layer to update more aggressively the rolling mean and variance (not recommended for production models).
On the original snippet, add the following code between reading the base_model and defining the new layers:
# ....
base_model = ResNet50(weights='imagenet', include_top=False, input_shape=input_shape)
# PATCH MOMENTUM - START
import json
conf = json.loads(base_model.to_json())
for l in conf['config']['layers']:
if l['class_name'] == 'BatchNormalization':
l['config']['momentum'] = 0.5
m = Model.from_config(conf['config'])
for l in base_model.layers:
m.get_layer(l.name).set_weights(l.get_weights())
base_model = m
# PATCH MOMENTUM - END
x = base_model.output
# ....
Would also recommend you to try another hack provided bu us here.
I have an LSTM model that I want to train on multiple gpus. I transformed the code to do this and in nvidia-smi I could see that it is using all the memory of all the gpus and each of the gpus are utilizing around 40% BUT the estimated time for training of each batch was almost the same as 1 gpu.
Can someone please guid me and tell me how I can train properly on multiple gpus?
My code:
import tensorflow as tf
from tensorflow.keras.models import Sequential
from tensorflow.keras.layers import Dense
from tensorflow.keras.layers import LSTM
from tensorflow.keras.layers import Dropout
import os
from tensorflow.keras.callbacks import ModelCheckpoint
checkpoint_path = "./model/"
checkpoint_dir = os.path.dirname(checkpoint_path)
cp_callback = ModelCheckpoint(filepath=checkpoint_path, save_freq= 'epoch', verbose=1 )
# NNET - LSTM
strategy = tf.distribute.MirroredStrategy()
with strategy.scope():
regressor = Sequential()
regressor.add(LSTM(units = 180, return_sequences = True, input_shape = (X_train.shape[1], 3)))
regressor.add(Dropout(0.2))
regressor.add(LSTM(units = 180, return_sequences = True))
regressor.add(Dropout(0.2))
regressor.add(LSTM(units = 180))
regressor.add(Dropout(0.2))
regressor.add(Dense(units = 4))
regressor.compile(optimizer = 'adam', loss = 'mean_squared_error')
regressor.fit(X_train, y_train, epochs = 10, batch_size = 32, callbacks=[cp_callback])
Assuming that your batch_size for a single GPU is N and the time taken per batch is X secs.
You can measure the training speed by measuring the time taken for the model to converge, but you have to make sure that you feed in the right batch_size with 2 GPUs since 2 GPUs will have twice the memory of a single GPU you should linearly scale your batch_size to 2N. It might be deceiving to see that the model still takes X secs per batch, but you should know that now your model is seeing 2N samples per batch, and would lead to a quicker convergence because now you can train with a higher learning rate.
If both of your GPUs have their memory utilized and are sitting at 40% utilization there might be multiple reasons
The model is too simple and you don't need all that compute.
Your batch_size is small and your GPUs can handle a bigger batch_size
Your CPU is the bottleneck and thus making the GPUs wait for the data to be ready, this can be the case when you see spikes in GPU utilization
You need to write a better and performant data pipeline. You can find more about efficient data input pipelines here - https://www.tensorflow.org/guide/data_performance
You can try using CuDNNLSTM. Its way faster than the usual LSTM layer.
https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/compat/v1/keras/layers/CuDNNLSTM
I am trying to implement a Keras Regression model on a dataset for my learning purpose. I have taken the data from the Kaggle Loan Default Prediction Challenge and I am trying to predict whether a person will default on a loan or not
The target column seems to be imbalanced and majority of the observations seems to have "0" as their value. I have tried the following approaches to overcome this data imbalance (a) Downsampled the Majority class (b) Upsample the Minority class (c) use the SMOTE algorithm. But these approaches do not seem to help the cause and prediction from the model is biased only towards "0" since majority of the classes in the dataset is "0". I have used the resample method from sklearn for performing the downsampling and upsampling.
What different approaches can I try to overcome this problem and achieve a good accuracy with my model on this data and get a realistic prediction from the model. I am sharing my code
from keras.models import Sequential
from keras.layers import Dense
from keras.regularizers import L1L2
import pandas
import numpy as np
from sklearn.cross_validation import train_test_split
from sklearn.preprocessing import Imputer
from sklearn.metrics import roc_auc_score
import statsmodels.api as sm
from sklearn import preprocessing as pre
train = pandas.read_csv('/train_v2.csv/train_v2.csv')
# Defining the target column
train_loss = train.loss
# Defining the features for the model
train = train[['f527','f528','f271']]
# Defining the imputer function
imp = Imputer()
# Fitting the imputation function to the training dataset
imp.fit(train)
train = imp.transform(train)
train=pre.StandardScaler().fit_transform(train)
# Splitting the data into Training and Testing samples
X_train,X_test,y_train,y_test = train_test_split( train,
train_loss,test_size=0.3, random_state=42)
# logistic regression with L1 and L2 regularization
reg = L1L2(l1=0.01, l2=0.01)
model = Sequential()
model.add(Dense(13,kernel_initializer='normal', activation='relu',
W_regularizer=reg, input_dim=X_train.shape[1]))
model.add(Dense(6, kernel_initializer='normal', activation='relu'))
model.add(Dense(1, kernel_initializer='normal'))
# Compile model
model.compile(loss='mean_squared_error', optimizer='adam')
model.fit(X_train, y_train, nb_epoch=10, validation_data=(X_test, y_test))