Understanding the Performance Horizon of the Latest ML Workloads with NonGEMM Workloads
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866910912181436416 |
|---|---|
| author | Karami, Rachid Kao, Sheng-Chun Kwon, Hyoukjun |
| author_facet | Karami, Rachid Kao, Sheng-Chun Kwon, Hyoukjun |
| contents | Among ML operators today, GEneralMatrix Multiplication (GEMM)-based operators are known to be key operators that build the main backbone of ML models. As their computational overhead dominates the overall execution time (e.g., 42.8% - 96.6% in our results), GEMM operators have been the prime optimization targets for fast ML inference. This led to advanced GPUs and accelerators available today, which provided significant boost in the GEMM performance compared to CPUs, aligned with the lesson from Amdahl's law. However, accelerating GEMM has significantly shifted the Amdahl's law's landscape for ML inference; due to the decreased GEMM execution time, the relative execution time of non-GEMM operators is now significant. Although the importance of non-GEMM performance is increasing, we have little knowledge about the non-GEMM performance horizon in the latest hardware platforms and models. Therefore, to guide non-GEMM-oriented optimizations, we conduct a thorough performance analysis of 17 widely adopted ML models in Hugging Face and Torchvision on workstation and data center platforms with/without GPUs. We discover that non-GEMM performance bottleneck is a considerable issue across all the platforms and models, accounting for 11.3% to 73.6% of total latency, on average. The challenge significantly aggravates when we apply quantization, which is a common model compression technique, due to the boosted GEMM performance and extra non-GEMM operators for dequantization and requantization. To provide insights into non-GEMM optimization targets, we demystify the most dominant non-GEMM operators for each model and deployment software. We also show that widely adopted optimizations such as operator fusion do not completely address the non-GEMM performance bottleneck, where non-GEMM operators still account for 15% to 48% of total latency. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2404_11788 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Understanding the Performance Horizon of the Latest ML Workloads with NonGEMM Workloads Karami, Rachid Kao, Sheng-Chun Kwon, Hyoukjun Hardware Architecture Machine Learning Performance Among ML operators today, GEneralMatrix Multiplication (GEMM)-based operators are known to be key operators that build the main backbone of ML models. As their computational overhead dominates the overall execution time (e.g., 42.8% - 96.6% in our results), GEMM operators have been the prime optimization targets for fast ML inference. This led to advanced GPUs and accelerators available today, which provided significant boost in the GEMM performance compared to CPUs, aligned with the lesson from Amdahl's law. However, accelerating GEMM has significantly shifted the Amdahl's law's landscape for ML inference; due to the decreased GEMM execution time, the relative execution time of non-GEMM operators is now significant. Although the importance of non-GEMM performance is increasing, we have little knowledge about the non-GEMM performance horizon in the latest hardware platforms and models. Therefore, to guide non-GEMM-oriented optimizations, we conduct a thorough performance analysis of 17 widely adopted ML models in Hugging Face and Torchvision on workstation and data center platforms with/without GPUs. We discover that non-GEMM performance bottleneck is a considerable issue across all the platforms and models, accounting for 11.3% to 73.6% of total latency, on average. The challenge significantly aggravates when we apply quantization, which is a common model compression technique, due to the boosted GEMM performance and extra non-GEMM operators for dequantization and requantization. To provide insights into non-GEMM optimization targets, we demystify the most dominant non-GEMM operators for each model and deployment software. We also show that widely adopted optimizations such as operator fusion do not completely address the non-GEMM performance bottleneck, where non-GEMM operators still account for 15% to 48% of total latency. |
| title | Understanding the Performance Horizon of the Latest ML Workloads with NonGEMM Workloads |
| topic | Hardware Architecture Machine Learning Performance |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11788 |