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

Update eval_squad to use API of latest optimum (#17918) #24

Merged

Conversation

TedThemistokleous
Copy link

Update eval_squad with latest optimum.

Tested with:

  • optimum 1.13.1
  • transformers 4.31.0
  • onnxruntime-gpu 1.16.0
  • onnx 1.14.1
  • datasets 2.14.5
  • evaluate 0.4.0
  • torch version 2.2.0.dev20230920+cu121

Example output in A100:

{'exact': 86.66035950804162, 'f1': 92.99622739711005, 'total': 10570, 'HasAns_exact': 86.66035950804162, 'HasAns_f1': 92.99622739711005, 'HasAns_total': 10570, 'best_exact': 86.66035950804162, 'best_exact_thresh': 0.9998456239700317, 'best_f1': 92.9962273971104, 'best_f1_thresh': 0.9998456239700317, 'total_time_in_seconds': 84.74025378189981, 'samples_per_second': 124.73410838731417, 'latency_in_seconds': 0.008017053337928081, 'provider': 'CUDAExecutionProvider', 'disable_fused_attention': False, 'pretrained_model_name':
'bert-large-uncased-whole-word-masking-finetuned-squad', 'onnx_path': './bert-large-uncased-whole-word-masking-finetuned-squad/optimized_model.onnx', 'batch_size': 1, 'sequence_length': 384, 'use_io_binding': True}

Description

Cherry pick from Microsoft/Onnxruntime for upstream changes to eval_squad.py

Motivation and Context

Without this backport we're broken for migx_onnxrt_bert_distilled_benchmarks due to missing pieces in the script. Testing was originally done upstream and it appears this change hasn't been backported.

Update eval_squad with latest optimum. 

Tested with:
* optimum 1.13.1
* transformers 4.31.0
* onnxruntime-gpu 1.16.0
* onnx 1.14.1
* datasets 2.14.5
* evaluate 0.4.0
* torch version 2.2.0.dev20230920+cu121

Example output in A100:

{'exact': 86.66035950804162, 'f1': 92.99622739711005, 'total': 10570,
'HasAns_exact': 86.66035950804162, 'HasAns_f1': 92.99622739711005,
'HasAns_total': 10570, 'best_exact': 86.66035950804162,
'best_exact_thresh': 0.9998456239700317, 'best_f1': 92.9962273971104,
'best_f1_thresh': 0.9998456239700317, 'total_time_in_seconds':
84.74025378189981, 'samples_per_second': 124.73410838731417,
'latency_in_seconds': 0.008017053337928081, 'provider':
'CUDAExecutionProvider', 'disable_fused_attention': False,
'pretrained_model_name':
'bert-large-uncased-whole-word-masking-finetuned-squad', 'onnx_path':
'./bert-large-uncased-whole-word-masking-finetuned-squad/optimized_model.onnx',
'batch_size': 1, 'sequence_length': 384, 'use_io_binding': True}
@TedThemistokleous TedThemistokleous added the bug Something isn't working label Nov 27, 2023
@TedThemistokleous TedThemistokleous self-assigned this Nov 27, 2023
@TedThemistokleous
Copy link
Author

Output using MIGraphX EP on Navi31

Evaluation done in 15.5 seconds
{'exact': 100.0, 'f1': 100.0, 'total': 2, 'HasAns_exact': 100.0, 'HasAns_f1': 100.0, 'HasAns_total': 2, 'best_exact': 100.0, 'best_exact_thresh': 0.7958137392997742, 'best_f1': 100.0, 'best_f1_thresh': 0.7958137392997742, 'total_time_in_seconds': 14.235455489950255, 'samples_per_second': 0.1404942751155333, 'latency_in_seconds': 7.117727744975127, 'provider': 'MIGraphXExecutionProvider', 'disable_fused_attention': False, 'pretrained_model_name': 'distilbert-base-cased-distilled-squad', 'onnx_path': './distilbert-base-cased-distilled-squad/model.onnx', 'batch_size': 1, 'sequence_length': 384, 'use_io_binding': False}

Copy link

@groenenboomj groenenboomj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This PR has been working upstream and we usually catch this in our remote syncs but it does look like this may have been missed. For the sake of normalization I think it's good to merge this and spot check for other related missed bits.

@TedThemistokleous
Copy link
Author

This PR has been working upstream and we usually catch this in our remote syncs but it does look like this may have been missed. For the sake of normalization I think it's good to merge this and spot check for other related missed bits.

I have checked it and it seems to work properly now for eval_squad.py.

@TedThemistokleous
Copy link
Author

@groenenboomj is there anywhere else I should be backporting this too? rocm6.0_internal as well?

@TedThemistokleous TedThemistokleous merged commit ef01cdb into rocm6.0_internal_testing Nov 27, 2023
12 of 14 checks passed
@TedThemistokleous TedThemistokleous deleted the update_eval_squad_script branch November 27, 2023 23:32
jagadish-amd pushed a commit to jagadish-amd/onnxruntime that referenced this pull request Sep 10, 2024
…line (microsoft#21789)

### Description
Upgrade pytorch_lightning to fix orttraining_amd_gpu_ci_pipeline
```
ROCm#24 1.838 WARNING: Ignoring version 1.6.0 of pytorch_lightning since it has invalid metadata:
ROCm#24 1.838 Requested pytorch_lightning==1.6.0 from https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/09/18/cee67f4849dea9a29b7af7cdf582246bcba9eaa73d9443e138a4172ec786/pytorch_lightning-1.6.0-py3-none-any.whl has invalid metadata: .* suffix can only be used with `==` or `!=` operators
ROCm#24 1.838     torch (>=1.8.*)
ROCm#24 1.838            ~~~~~~^
ROCm#24 1.838 Please use pip<24.1 if you need to use this version.
ROCm#24 1.838 ERROR: Ignored the following versions that require a different python version: 1.14.0 Requires-Python >=3.10; 1.14.0rc1 Requires-Python >=3.10; 1.14.0rc2 Requires-Python >=3.10; 2.1.0 Requires-Python >=3.10; 2.1.0rc1 Requires-Python >=3.10
ROCm#24 1.838 ERROR: Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement pytorch_lightning==1.6.0 (from versions: 0.0.2, 0.2, 0.2.2, 0.2.3, 0.2.4, 0.2.4.1, 0.2.5, 0.2.5.1, 0.2.5.2, 0.2.6, 0.3, 0.3.1, 0.3.2, 0.3.3, 0.3.4, 0.3.4.1, 0.3.5, 0.3.6, 0.3.6.1, 0.3.6.3, 0.3.6.4, 0.3.6.5, 0.3.6.6, 0.3.6.7, 0.3.6.8, 0.3.6.9, 0.4.0, 0.4.1, 0.4.2, 0.4.3, 0.4.4, 0.4.5, 0.4.6, 0.4.7, 0.4.8, 0.4.9, 0.5.0, 0.5.1, 0.5.1.2, 0.5.1.3, 0.5.2, 0.5.2.1, 0.5.3, 0.5.3.1, 0.5.3.2, 0.5.3.3, 0.6.0, 0.7.1, 0.7.3, 0.7.5, 0.7.6, 0.8.1, 0.8.3, 0.8.4, 0.8.5, 0.9.0, 0.10.0, 1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, 1.0.4, 1.0.5, 1.0.6, 1.0.7, 1.0.8, 1.1.0, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.2.0rc0, 1.2.0rc1, 1.2.0rc2, 1.2.0, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.2.10, 1.3.0rc1, 1.3.0rc2, 1.3.0rc3, 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 1.3.7.post0, 1.3.8, 1.4.0rc0, 1.4.0rc1, 1.4.0rc2, 1.4.0, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.4.6, 1.4.7, 1.4.8, 1.4.9, 1.5.0rc0, 1.5.0rc1, 1.5.0, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.5.4, 1.5.5, 1.5.6, 1.5.7, 1.5.8, 1.5.9, 1.5.10, 1.6.0rc0, 1.6.0rc1, 1.6.0, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 1.6.4, 1.6.5, 1.7.0rc0, 1.7.0rc1, 1.7.0, 1.7.1, 1.7.2, 1.7.3, 1.7.4, 1.7.5, 1.7.6, 1.7.7, 1.8.0rc0, 1.8.0rc1, 1.8.0rc2, 1.8.0, 1.8.0.post1, 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 1.8.3.post0, 1.8.3.post1, 1.8.3.post2, 1.8.4, 1.8.4.post0, 1.8.5, 1.8.5.post0, 1.8.6, 1.9.0rc0, 1.9.0, 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 1.9.3, 1.9.4, 1.9.5, 2.0.0rc0, 2.0.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.1.post0, 2.0.2, 2.0.3, 2.0.4, 2.0.5, 2.0.6, 2.0.7, 2.0.8, 2.0.9, 2.0.9.post0, 2.1.0rc0, 2.1.0rc1, 2.1.0, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.2.0rc0, 2.2.0, 2.2.0.post0, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.3.0, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.4.0)
ROCm#24 1.838 ERROR: No matching distribution found for pytorch_lightning==1.6.0
```
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants