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

[Distributed][refactor] Add base class for device-specific communicator #11324

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

MengqingCao
Copy link
Contributor

@MengqingCao MengqingCao commented Dec 19, 2024

part of #11162

This PR provide a base class CommunicatorBase for device-specific communicators (HpuCommunicator, TpuCommunicator and XpuCommunicator), avoiding the cumbersome dispatch in each communicator operator of GroupCoordinator, e.g.,
https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/blob/main/vllm/distributed/parallel_state.py#L342-L353

In this pr, the communication-related classes are organized as the following fig. This allows new backends to implement their own communicators and dynamic dispatch them in the platform.
image

Copy link

👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to the vLLM project.
Just a reminder: PRs would not trigger full CI run by default. Instead, it would only run fastcheck CI which starts running only a small and essential subset of CI tests to quickly catch errors. You can run other CI tests on top of those by going to your fastcheck build on Buildkite UI (linked in the PR checks section) and unblock them. If you do not have permission to unblock, ping simon-mo or khluu to add you in our Buildkite org.

Once the PR is approved and ready to go, your PR reviewer(s) can run CI to test the changes comprehensively before merging.

To run CI, PR reviewers can do one of these:

  • Add ready label to the PR
  • Enable auto-merge.

🚀

@wangxiyuan wangxiyuan mentioned this pull request Dec 19, 2024
1 task
wangxiyuan added a commit to cosdt/vllm that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2025
@MengqingCao MengqingCao force-pushed the communicator branch 3 times, most recently from 1a977d3 to 6de2b98 Compare January 14, 2025 02:01
Copy link

mergify bot commented Jan 15, 2025

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be
merged. Please rebase the PR, @MengqingCao.

https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/working-with-forks/syncing-a-fork

@mergify mergify bot added the needs-rebase label Jan 15, 2025
Comment on lines 9 to 30
class CommunicatorABC(ABC):
"""
CommunicatorBase ABC
"""

@abstractmethod
def all_reduce(self, input_: torch.Tensor) -> torch.Tensor:
raise NotImplementedError

def gather(self,
input_: torch.Tensor,
dst: int = 0,
dim: int = -1) -> Optional[torch.Tensor]:

raise NotImplementedError

def all_gather(self, input_: torch.Tensor, dim: int = -1) -> torch.Tensor:
raise NotImplementedError


class CommunicatorBase(CommunicatorABC):
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why are these two classes instead of one?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The abstract class is just to provide a unified interface and indicate the object type, like following

self.communicator: CommunicatorABC = CommunicatorBase(

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@youkaichao WDYT of we keep both CommunicatorABC and CommunicatorBase here? Plz let me know if you have any suggestion on this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants