Use Threads.nthreads() * 2 in TSVI
#936
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Benchmark Report for Commit 6b9b332Computer InformationBenchmark Results |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #936 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 82.91% 82.91%
=======================================
Files 36 36
Lines 3962 3962
=======================================
Hits 3285 3285
Misses 677 677 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 15216502921Details
💛 - Coveralls |
1 similar comment
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 15216502921Details
💛 - Coveralls |
mhauru
requested changes
May 27, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm happy with this as a hacky workaround, would only propose documenting why this is the way it is.
How would TuringLang/Turing.jl#2555 affect TSVI?
| @@ -9,7 +9,9 @@ struct ThreadSafeVarInfo{V<:AbstractVarInfo,L} <: AbstractVarInfo | |||
| logps::L | |||
| end | |||
| function ThreadSafeVarInfo(vi::AbstractVarInfo) | |||
| return ThreadSafeVarInfo(vi, [Ref(zero(getlogp(vi))) for _ in 1:Threads.nthreads()]) | |||
| return ThreadSafeVarInfo( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we add a comment here explaining the situation and maybe linking to this PR or the relevant issue? The * 2 would otherwise appear quite mysterious.
By making it opt-in, it would allow us to use In contrast, now TSVI is mandatory whenever |
|
Oh right, because you can specify an AbstractVarInfo when you make a LogDensityFunction. Got it. |
|
Optimistically, I might be able to get that done by the end of this week, but if I find it's too hard I'll come back to this! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See #924 for background.
This PR adopts a similar approach to solution (1), i.e., using
Threads.maxthreadid(). However, Mooncake can't differentiatemaxthreadid(), so this is a hacky workaround to a hacky workaround, based on the observation thatmaxthreadid()seems to be upper-bounded bynthreads() * 2.Personally, I would be much more in favour of removing TSVI (or making it opt-in), and will probably do this in a separate PR once TuringLang/Turing.jl#2555 is solved.
But this is a quick enough fix that should ensure that TSVI continues to work on Julia 1.12 (even if for the wrong reasons). Whether we merge this will probably depend on how fast that Turing issue can be fixed -- if it's soon, then we can remove TSVI, if it's not soon, then this can plug the gap.
Note that if TSVI is opt-in, then we can just use
maxthreadid(), thereby removing one layer of hackiness — because Mooncake doesn't work with multithreaded execution anyway, the scenarios where you'd want to opt into TSVI have no overlap with the scenarios where you'd want to use Mooncake.